Wiley v. McGrath

• Decision Date: 05 February 1900
• Docket Number: 188
• Citation: 45 A. 331,194 Pa. 498
• Parties: Elizabeth Wiley v. Frank C. McGrath, Appellant
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

45 A. 331

194 Pa. 498

Elizabeth Wiley v. Frank C. McGrath, Appellant

No. 188

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

February 5, 1900

Argued January 4, 1900

Appeal, No. 188, Jan. T., 1899, by defendant, from judgment of C.P. No. 1, Phila. Co., Dec. T., 1894, No. 388, on verdict for plaintiff. Affirmed.

Replevin for two horses, harness and coach. Before BREGY, J.

The facts are fully stated in the opinion of the Supreme Court.

The court admitted under objection and exception the lease of the premises where the plaintiff carried on business, [3] and also the assignment of a fire insurance policy from her husband to herself. [4]

The court rejected various offers of defendant to prove that he had purchased this property from the plaintiff's husband the ostensible owner, and paid him for it. [5-9]

Defendant's sixth point and the answer thereto were as follows:

The measure of damages is the value of the articles at the time the writ issued, if you find for the plaintiff. Answer Refused. [1]

The court charged in part as follows:

[If you think the circumstances of the keeping of the horses, wagon and harness were of such a character as makes it amount to an outrage or fraud, you could add to the value of the property and interest, such a sum as you think would be a proper punishment to inflict upon the defendant for such a wrong.]

Verdict and judgment for plaintiff for $1,018. Defendant appealed.

Errors assigned were (3-9) rulings on evidence, quoting the bill of exceptions; (1, 2) above instructions, quoting the same.

All the assignments of error are overruled, and the judgment is affirmed.

Alex. Simpson, Jr., with him F. J. Lambert, for appellant. -- It must be a rare case of misconduct on the part of a defendant in an action like this to authorize punitive damages: Cummings v. Gann, 52 Pa. 491.

Thomas A. Fahy, for appellee. -- The plea of non cepit admits the property; the taking or unlawful detention only is in issue, and to this question the evidence must apply: Mackinley v. McGregor, 3 Whart. 369; Buckley v. Handy, 2 Miles, 449; Morris on Replevin, 191.

Plaintiff was entitled to punitive damages: Rafferty v. Haldron, 81* Pa. 438; Schofield v. Ferrers, 46 Pa. 438; McDonald v. Scaife, 11 Pa. 381.

Before GREEN, C.J., McCOLLUM, MITCHELL, DEAN, FELL, BROWN and MESTREZAT, JJ.

OPINION

MR. JUSTICE DEAN:

Joseph Wiley, the husband of plaintiff, kept a livery stable on Sydenham street in Philadelphia. On July 27, 1894, by regular bill of sale, he transferred to his wife, Elizabeth Wiley, four horses, some harness, two carriages and one coupe, kept at the stable. While the consideration expressed is "one dollar and other good consideration," it is not disputed that she paid a full price for the articles. The wife took possession of the property, and undertook to carry on the stable; she gave notice generally of her purchase, and within a few days, having occasion to call upon Frank McGrath, who conducted a stable on Seventeenth street, she exhibited to him the bill of sale, also showed it to young Frank C. McGrath, this defendant, who is a cousin of Frank McGrath, and assisted in the stable work. Her husband, it appeared, went to Ireland immediately after the sale, whence he did not return until about December 1, following. On the night of December 7, two of the horses, some harness and a coach, all of which were embraced in the bill of sale, were taken from the wife's stable by the husband, and sold to defendant. When she made search for her property she called at the McGrath stable, but both the McGraths feigned ignorance, and promised their aid in searching for the property; five days later, she discovered it in the McGrath stable; it had been purchased, ostensibly by defendant from the husband, by regular bill of sale. Plaintiff, at once, replevied it; defendant gave to the sheriff a claim property bond, and retained possession; in the issue made up he pleaded non cepit, and on this plea the case went to trial. The learned trial judge ruled that the plea admitted property in plaintiff, and rejected evidence tending to show a purchase of the property by McGrath from the husband. He, also, submitted the evidence to the jury to find, whether there had been such flagrant wrong and deception on part of defendant as to warrant punitive damages. The jury found for plaintiff $1,000 damages, and we have this appeal by defendant, who assigns nine errors. The first two allege the court erred in not instructing the jury that the measure of damages was the actual value of the property at the time the writ was issued.

While appellant concedes that punitive damages may be allowed in...