O'Donnel v. Seybert
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
IN ERROR. Br the return of the writ of error, in this case, to the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster county, it appeared that this was an action on the case, brought by the plaintiff below, John Jldam Seybert, against the defendant below, Denis O’ Donnel, to recover damages for an excessive distress for rent. The plea was,— Not guilty.
Read the full summary
IN ERROR. Br the return of the writ of error, in this case, to the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster county, it appeared that this was an action on the case, brought by the plaintiff below, John Jldam Seybert, against the defendant below, Denis O’ Donnel, to recover damages for an excessive distress for rent. The plea was,— Not guilty. The evidence offered and contained in the 2d and 4th bills of exceptions, hereafter stated, was offered by the defendant, to show that a former recovery was had, in an action of trespass, brought before Samuel Carpenter, Esq. a justice of the peace, for the…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Duncan, J.
The action for excessive distress has not been a common action in Pennsylvania; indeed the occurrences are rare which would justify it. But, from the evidence returned with the record, this appears to have been a malicious and tyrannical exercise of the power which the law gives the landlord to take the remedy into his own hand. But, while it gives the power, it protects the tenant against its abuse, for this was always punishable at the common law. But the statute of Marlbridge has nearly superseded the common law action. The 10th chapter of…
2Cited by3 opinions
- People ex rel. Stanton v. Tioga C. P.New York Supreme Court · 1837
- Kessler v. M'ConachySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1829
- Feingold v. Liberty Mutual GroupDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2012