Ancora v. Burns
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
IN ERROR. THIS was a writ of error to the Common Pleas of Philadelphia county. By the record, it was an action of replevin for goods distrained for rent. The attorney of the plaintiff, Ancora, indorsed on the writ the sum of 87 dollars and 50 cents, as being the defendant’s claim for rent; and the sheriff, by his return, replevied and delivered the goods to the plaintiff.
Read the full summary
IN ERROR. THIS was a writ of error to the Common Pleas of Philadelphia county. By the record, it was an action of replevin for goods distrained for rent. The attorney of the plaintiff, Ancora, indorsed on the writ the sum of 87 dollars and 50 cents, as being the defendant’s claim for rent; and the sheriff, by his return, replevied and delivered the goods to the plaintiff. In the narr the damages were laid at 400 dollars; the defendant avowed for rent in arreár; the plaintiff replied no rent in arrear, and the issue being joined, the cause was ready for trial, when the act of the 30th of March…
1Opinion of the Court
Tilghman C. J.
The plaintiff in this suit, laid his damages in his declaration at 400 dollars; and hence it is contended, that the sum in controversy in this suit, exceeded one hundred dollars, ?and therefore the cause should have been transferred to the District Court. The plaintiff’s counsel has cited cases which prove, that in actions sounding purely in tort, such as trespass vi et armis &c., there is no standard for estimating the sum in controversy, but the amount of damages laid in the declaration. Granting it to be so, the rule is not applicable to the present case, where, in the…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Dick v. GaskillSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1837
- Forrester v. AlexanderSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1842