Curtis v. Buzzard
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
IN ERROR. On a writ of error to the Court of Common Pleas of Franklin county, it appeared that this was an action of replevin for sheep, brought by JLzabah Curtis against John Buzzard.' The plaintiff brought ten other actions of replevin against ten other persons, for sheep, all part of the same flock, and the property depending on the same title.
Read the full summary
IN ERROR. On a writ of error to the Court of Common Pleas of Franklin county, it appeared that this was an action of replevin for sheep, brought by JLzabah Curtis against John Buzzard.' The plaintiff brought ten other actions of replevin against ten other persons, for sheep, all part of the same flock, and the property depending on the same title. It was agreed, that only one of these actions, viz. the one in which David Washebaugh was the defendant, should be tried, “and all the others should be governed by the verdict and judgment in that case, whether for the plaintiff or defendant; and,…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Tilgiiman, C. J.
Unless the plaintiff is liable to the witnesses for their attendance in each suit, he cannot recover it, because he can recover no more than he pays, or is liable to pay. Now, it would be extraordinary, indeed, if a witness could demand the price of eleven days’ attendance, when in fact he attended but one. The law admits of no such extravagancies. He is to be paid a certain sum fixed by law, for each day’s attendance, and, having received that, he is entitled to no more. The principle which must govern this case has been established by…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Commonwealth ex rel. Freytag v. Commissioners of Philadelphia CountySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1814
3Cited by2 opinions
- Horner v. HarringtonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1837
- Towanda Bank v. BallardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1844