Weiler v. Coleman
| Decision Date | 17 October 1872 |
| Citation | 71 Pa. 346 |
| Parties | Weiler, Assignee of Smith, v. Coleman et al. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
March 26, 1872
1. Under the Act of April 10th 1862, for the protection of logs on the Susquehanna, evidence that the stamps were those of a plaintiff in replevin, regularly registered, is not essential to prove that the logs were his property.
2. That the plaintiff was engaged in lumbering on a tributary of the West Branch of the Susquehanna, that the logs were stamped with his mark, that no other logs had been known to be so stamped, and no other person had ever claimed from the boom company logs so stamped, was presumptive evidence that the logs were his.
Before THOMPSON, C. J., SHARSWOOD and WILLIAMS, JJ.
AGNEW J., at Nisi Prius.
Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Lycoming county: No 288, to January Term 1871.
This was an action of replevin issued, September 19th 1868, by David A. Smith against Fletcher Coleman and others for 80,000 feet of pine lumber. The plaintiff having afterwards made an assignment to James Weiler for the benefit of creditors, the assignee was substituted as plaintiff.
On the trial, October 25th 1870, before Gamble, P. J., the plaintiff gave evidence that he was engaged in lumbering in Potter county on Slate run, a tributary of Pine creek, which empties into the West Branch of the Susquehanna. In 1863, D. Rader was doing business for him, but was not his agent.
The plaintiff then made the following offers of evidence, all of which were rejected by the court, and several bills of exception sealed:--
1. The record of the Court of Common Pleas of Lycoming county, Pa. to show the registry of the log marks of D. A. Smith, under the provisions of the Act of April 10th 1862, said statement and certificate having been filed and registry made April 25th 1863.
Agreeably to the provisions of the Act of Assembly of the 10th day of April, A. D. 1862, the undersigned has adopted and now states to you as his mark of designation, to be placed upon his logs, & c., to be floated upon the Susquehanna river to the boom at Williamsport, the letters ‘ U T’ and also the figure (a brace and bit).
I do further certify that such marks have been adopted and will be used by me. April 17th 1863.
S. D RADER, for D. A. Smith."
2. Plaintiff renewed the offer, to be followed by evidence that the lumber in dispute was replevined at Coleman's mill, along the bank of the West Branch of the Susquehanna river, and sawed from logs floated down said stream into the Susquehanna boom at Williamsport, and from thence taken to said mill; and said logs being marked U T and " brace and bit."
3. Certified copy and exemplification of record of Court of Common Pleas of Lycoming county of the log-marks of David A. Smith, under provisions of the Act of 10th April 1862, entitled " An act for the more effectual protection of the owners of logs and lumber on the Susquehanna river; " --and this to show that U T and " brace and bit" were the registered marks of said Smith, and as evidence that he was the owner of logs so marked, and to be followed by evidence that said logs were not registered in the name of any other person or persons whatever, and by other evidence that defendants caused their own marks to be stamped over the marks of said Smith, and that the logs so restamped were taken by defendants' agents from the Susquehanna boom to Coleman's mill and converted into lumber, which lumber was replevined at said mill upon the writ issued in this case.
4. To prove that David A. Smith was engaged in lumbering upon the West Branch of the Susquehanna river and its tributaries from 1862 to 1870, inclusive; that during all that time he used the marks U T and " brace and bit" upon all of his logs, and that no other person or persons ever used said marks; --and this as evidence to show property in David A. Smith in the logs from which this lumber was manufactured.
5. To prove by John Davis that he has constantly worked upon the Susquehanna boom for the past ten years and upwards; that during all that time the marks U T and " brace and bit" were recognised by the officers of the boom company as the property of D. A. Smith, and that no other person ever claimed ownership in logs so marked; and this as evidence to show property in logs so marked in D. A. Smith.
The jury, under the direction of the court, found a verdict for the defendants.
The plaintiff took a writ of error, and assigned for error the rejection of his offers of evidence and the instruction of the court.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brown v. Herrick
...even though the brand has not been recorded in accordance with the statutory provision. (12 Ency. of Evidence, 512, 513; Weiler v. Coleman, 71 Pa. 346.) C. Potts, for Respondents. Where there is a contract for the sale of specific goods, and the seller is bound to do something to the goods ......
-
Whitman v. Muskegon Log Lifting & Operating Co.
...the mark in dispute which he in fact used and put upon his logs. St. Paul Boom Co. v. Kemp, 125 Wis. 138, 103 N. W. 259;Weiler v. Coleman, 71 Pa. 346. The court held that the marked logs had been abandoned, and therefore belonged to complainant as riparian proprietor. We do not find from th......