Siner v. Stearne
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 6, July T., 1892, by defendants, Thaddeus Stearne et al., from judgment of C. P. No. 4, Phila. Co., Dec. T., 1890, No. 232, on verdict for plaintiffs, Charles B. Siner et al. Assumpsit to recover value of mechanics’ liens alleged to have been lost by negligence of defendants.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 6, July T., 1892, by defendants, Thaddeus Stearne et al., from judgment of C. P. No. 4, Phila. Co., Dec. T., 1890, No. 232, on verdict for plaintiffs, Charles B. Siner et al. Assumpsit to recover value of mechanics’ liens alleged to have been lost by negligence of defendants. At the trial, before Thayer, P. J., it appeared that defendants, who were collectors and conveyancers, filed for plaintiff certain mechanics’ lien claims, placing upon them the name of an attorney, whose name had been placed upon other liens previously filed by them for plaintiffs. Subsequently a rule was…
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam,
We think this case is ruled by Bradstreet v. Everson, 72 Pa. 124, and by Morgan v. Tener, 83 Pa. 305. The defendants, having undertaken the collection of plaintiffs’ claims, are responsible for the neglect of the attorney employed by them by which the claims were lost. The question of defendants’ negligence was fairly submitted to the jury, and their verdict is conclusive upon the question of fact. ¡,
Judgment affirmed.
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Morgan v. TenerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1877
- Bradstreet v. EversonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1872
3Cited by4 opinions
- Morris v. First National BankSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1902
- Klein, Exrx. v. May Stern Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1940
- New York Hotel Statler Co. v. Girard National BankSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1925
- City National Bank v. Cooper & GriffinSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1912