Newman v. Romanelli
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 182, Jan. T., 1913, by plaintiffs, from judgment of C. P. No. 5, Philadelphia Co., June T., 1912, No. 3994, on verdict for defendant in case of Abe and Rosie Newman v. Joseph Romanelli. Action of trespass to recover damages for the illegal distraint of goods. The opinion of the Supreme Court states the case. ■ Verdict for defendant and judgment thereon. Plaintiffs appealed. Error assigned was in refusing to direct a verdict for the plaintiffs.
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam,
The only. assignment of error by the plaintiffs is to the refusal of the court to direct a verdict for them. The action was for the illegal distraint of goods that had been removed from premises leased by the defendant to one of the plaintiffs. In answer to plaintiffs’ requests for charge, the jury were instructed that the distraint was unlawful if no rent was in arrears and that for an unlawful distraint or an excessive one or one on goods of a stranger removed from the demised premises before rent became due, a recovery could be had without proof of specific damages. The request…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Reel v. ElderSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1869
- Lehigh Coal & Navigation Co. v. EvansSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1896
3Cited by3 opinions
- Nanty-Glo Boro. v. American Surety Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1932
- Brelish v. Prud. Ins. Co. of AmericaSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1933
- Dougherty v. CSX Transportation Inc., Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Lawrence County2010