Harvey v. Snow
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Writ of error of a judgment in ejectment in Luzerne county. Plea in millo est erratum. On tbe part of the plaintiffs in error (the defendants below) three exceptions were taken. It appeared oh the record, that the cause had been referred by mutual consent, and that the referees had found the defendants guilty of the trespass and ejectment, but had assessed no damages or costs. The court had given judgment for the plaintiff and awarded costs.
Read the full summary
Writ of error of a judgment in ejectment in Luzerne county. Plea in millo est erratum. On tbe part of the plaintiffs in error (the defendants below) three exceptions were taken. It appeared oh the record, that the cause had been referred by mutual consent, and that the referees had found the defendants guilty of the trespass and ejectment, but had assessed no damages or costs. The court had given judgment for the plaintiff and awarded costs. Exception 1 st. That ejectments are not within the act of assembly, respecting the appointment of referees. 2. No damages are found, as by law they…
1Opinion of the Court
Per Cur.
Where damages only are to be recovered, if none are found, the verdict would be bad; but it is otherwise in ejectment, debt, &c. where anything is to be recovered besides damages. 1 Trials per pais 293. The damages in ejectment are merely nominal; an action for mesne profits is consequential to the recovery in ejectment. Runnington on Ejectments 164. We apprehend, that on a similar verdict to the present report in Westminister Hall, the exception would be overruled; but, in Pennsylvania, costs are seldom or never specified in reports on ejectment causes. References in such cases are…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Shafer v. CascioSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1926
- Caulk v. EverlySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1841