Yinger v. Youngman
Decision Date | 12 March 1906 |
Docket Number | 1-1905 |
Citation | 30 Pa.Super. 139 |
Parties | Yinger, Appellant, v. Youngman |
Court | Pennsylvania Superior Court |
Argued March 9, 1905 [Syllabus Matter]
Appeal by plaintiff, from judgment of C.P. Lycoming Co.-1903, No 148, on verdict for defendant in case of William Yinger v Samuel L. Young and Robert Mitchell.
Replevin for goods distrained. Before Hart, P. J.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Superior Court.
The court charged in part as follows:
Plaintiff presented these points:
1. If the jury find from the evidence that S. L. Youngman at the time the memorandum for steam heat was made on the back of the lease, agreed to put radiators in the premises leased from him by plaintiff, and that he failed to keep his agreement, and that the plaintiff has paid the rent for the premises in question, then the verdict must be for the plaintiff, William Yinger. Answer: We say to you if you find the rent for the premises has been paid by the plaintiff, then your verdict, of course, would have to be for the plaintiff; but with reference to the matter of radiators, as referred to in this point, we have already charged you particularly with reference to the law upon that subject; and with what we have said in our general charge with reference to that, we will affirm this proposition.
3. Under all the evidence in this case the verdict of the jury should be for the plaintiff, William Yinger. Answer: We refuse to so charge you.
Verdict and judgment for defendant for $ 90.45 for rent in arrears and for $ 65.00, the value of the goods distrained. Plaintiff appealed.
Errors assigned were in admitting in evidence the lease between the parties; in refusing to admit evidence as to the oral agreement referred to in the opinion of the Supreme Court; above instructions, quoting them.
Reversed.
J. M. Reilly, with him J. Horace Shall and Edw. S. McGraw, for appellant, cited: Pyroleum Appliance Co. v. Williamsport Hardware & Stove Co., 169 Pa. 440.
C. Bartles for appellees, cited: Long v. Fitzsimmons, 1 W. & S. 530; Cornell v. Vanartsdalen, 4 Pa. 364; Bears v. Ambler, 9 Pa. 194; Kline v. Jacobs, 68 Pa. 57; Moore v. Weber, 71 Pa. 429; Eberle v. Bonafon, 17 W.N.C. 335; Pioso v. Bitzer, 209 Pa. 503; Replogle v. Singer, 19 Pa.Super. 442; Knight's Estate, 20 Pa.Super. 413.
Before Rice, P. J., Beaver, Orlady, Smith, Porter and Henderson, JJ.
This was an action of replevin for goods distrained in March 1903, under a lease from Samuel Youngman to H. J. Lambert for the term of one year from April 1, 1902. Crediting the admitted payments the amount distrained for was in excess of the amount due under the terms of the lease. The right to distrain for this excess was claimed under the following agreement under seal between Youngman and Lambert indorsed on the back of the lease: " And now, October 22, 1902, I agree that the price required for heating my half of the large storeroom, Nos. 336-338 Pine street, may be added to the rent provided herein which is $ 25.00 for the entire store, my half $ 12.50, subject to the conditional reduction proposed in proposition of F. H. Moore, proprietor of the steam plant." It appeared by the testimony of Youngman, the defendant, that the charge of the steam heating company for heating the entire building, beginning in October, 1902, was $ 25.00 a month, for which he as owner of...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Gelber v. Western Nat'l Bank
...memorandum can be shown, we refer to the following cases: Sloss-Sheffield Steel & Iron Co. v. Iron Co., 46 Pa.Super. 164; Yinger v. Youngman, 30 Pa.Super. 139; Campbell v. Erb, 35 Pa.Super. 436; Diehl Co. v. Phila. Elect. Co., 49 Pa.Super. 257; Perkiomen R. R. Co. v. Bromer, 217 Pa. 263, 66......