Huston v. Wilson
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
ERROR to the common pleas of Mleghany county. The plaintiff in error was plaintiff below, and instituted an action of replevin against the defendant for one sorrel horse of the value of 150 dollars. The property was replevied. The defendant pleaded property and claimed the horse under a purchase at constable’s sale, by virtue of an execution issued by the defendant against a former owner. The jury rendered a verdict “ for the defendant, 28 dollars and 75 cents.”
Read the full summary
ERROR to the common pleas of Mleghany county. The plaintiff in error was plaintiff below, and instituted an action of replevin against the defendant for one sorrel horse of the value of 150 dollars. The property was replevied. The defendant pleaded property and claimed the horse under a purchase at constable’s sale, by virtue of an execution issued by the defendant against a former owner. The jury rendered a verdict “ for the defendant, 28 dollars and 75 cents.” A motion was then made by the plaintiff for a new trial. This motion was overruled, and judgment de retorno habendo, and that…
1Per curiam
The rule for cases like the present, laid down in Easton v. Worthington, is to find the issue of property generally for the defendant, with damages for the detention. The objection here is,' that general damages are found, and it is uncertain whether for the válue or the detention. But to find “ for the defendant 28 dol*289lars and 75 cents,” on the plea of property, is to find the issue for him, generally, with damages for the only matter within the scope of their inquiry, the detention. It is not to be presumed that the jury were uninstructed in the nature of their duties, or the course to Ire…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Flanagin v. WetherillSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1840
- Lovett v. BurkhardtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1863