Clark v. Sargeant
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Crawford county: Of January Term, 1886, No. 255. This was an action of trespass quare clausum fregit for cutting and removing timber trees from the lands of the plaintiffs by the defendants brought by Haniel Clark, Edwin P. Clark and Henry A. Drake against William G. Sargeant, Samuel Gillett, Thomas J. Shonts and -Charles Stewart.
Read the full summary
Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Crawford county: Of January Term, 1886, No. 255. This was an action of trespass quare clausum fregit for cutting and removing timber trees from the lands of the plaintiffs by the defendants brought by Haniel Clark, Edwin P. Clark and Henry A. Drake against William G. Sargeant, Samuel Gillett, Thomas J. Shonts and -Charles Stewart. The plea was not guilty, with the special plea that the cutting and removing said timber trees was by mistake and under the belief that they belonged to the defendants, with the offer to pay to the plaintiffs the full value of…
1Opinion of the CourtChief Justice Mercur
The only error alleged is the refusal of the court to treble the. damages found by the jury. The action was trespass for the defendants cutting timber trées standing and growing on the lands of the plaintiffs without the consent of the latter, and for carrying away, converting and disposing of the same to the use of the defendants. The narr also averred the trespass was contrary to the Act of Assembly in such case made and provided.
The presumption of law is that the jury gave all the damages authorized by the statute: Campbell v. Finney, 3 Watts, 84; Hughes et al. v. Stevens, 36 Pa. St., 320.…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Campbell v. FinneySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1834
3Cited by3 opinions
- Foster v. WaybrightSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1951
- Henning v. KeiperSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1908
- Kulp v. BirdSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1887