Wagner v. Peterson
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Error to the District Court of Philadelphia county: Of January Term 1874, No. 269. Assumpsit by Daniel S. Wagner against Pearson S. Peterson. The narr. contained the common counts. The defendant pleaded non-assumpsit, &c., and the Statute of Limitations as to the recovery of usurious interest after six months.
Read the full summary
Error to the District Court of Philadelphia county: Of January Term 1874, No. 269. Assumpsit by Daniel S. Wagner against Pearson S. Peterson. The narr. contained the common counts. The defendant pleaded non-assumpsit, &c., and the Statute of Limitations as to the recovery of usurious interest after six months. The plaintiff’s evidence at the trial (before Lynd, J.) tended to show these facts: The plaintiff employed the defendant, a banker and stock-broker in Philadelphia, to purchase and carry for him a number of shares of the stock of the Pittsburgh, Port Wayne & Chicago Railroad Co.…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Sharsavood
Had the plaintiff’s claim been confined to the value of the stock sold by the defendant, the nonsuit Avould have been unquestionably right. Admitting that, under the circumstances, the sale Avas a Avrongful conversion, and'that plaintiff might waive the tort and sue in assumpsit, the measure of his damages Avould be the market *241value at the time of conversion. It is not the rule even in the action of trover in such a case, that the plaintiff is entitled to recover the highest price which the stock would have commanded at any time before the trial. That rule is confined to the case where there…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Rodgers v. Studebaker Sales Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1931
- Mull v. Pennsylvania RailroadSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1909