Miller v. Fitch
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
ERROR to the Common Pleas of Lycoming county. Jonathan Fitch against John Miller. This was an action of trover and conversion to recover the price of a quantity of lumber. Samuel G. Randall had been the owner of the property, and, as was alleged, sold it to the plaintiff; the lumber was subsequently levied upon an execution against Randall and purchased by Miller, the defendant.
Read the full summary
ERROR to the Common Pleas of Lycoming county. Jonathan Fitch against John Miller. This was an action of trover and conversion to recover the price of a quantity of lumber. Samuel G. Randall had been the owner of the property, and, as was alleged, sold it to the plaintiff; the lumber was subsequently levied upon an execution against Randall and purchased by Miller, the defendant. On the trial of the cause the question was, whether Randall was a competent witness to prove the sale and delivery to Fitch, the plaintiff. The court below (Donnell, President) ruled that he was, to which opinion the…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Rogers, J.
The exception raises the question whether the vendor under whom both parties claim is a competent witness to prove the sale of the property in dispute to the plaintiff The objection is that he is interested in the plaintiff’s recovery, because, in the event of a verdict for the defendant, he is liable to the plaintiff in the implied warranty of title. The law which bears on this case is well settled, and is accurately stated in Ross on Vendors 334, where the authorities are cited. By the civil law, an implied warranty was annexed to every…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Freeman v. CaldwellSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1840
3Cited by3 opinions
- Hill v. CanfieldSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1868
- Lee v. BurkAppellate Court of Illinois · 1885
- Graham & Mellor v. McCrearySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1861