Roland v. Eckman
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 100, Oct. T., 1899, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. Lancaster Co., March T., 1897, No. 50, and May T., 1897, No. 32, on verdict for plaintiff. Appeal from judgment of alderman in favor of defendant. Before Livingston, P. J. It appears from the record that two proceedings were consolidated on motion and that plaintiff proceeded in an action of .assumpsit and defendant pleaded nonassumpsit.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 100, Oct. T., 1899, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. Lancaster Co., March T., 1897, No. 50, and May T., 1897, No. 32, on verdict for plaintiff. Appeal from judgment of alderman in favor of defendant. Before Livingston, P. J. It appears from the record that two proceedings were consolidated on motion and that plaintiff proceeded in an action of .assumpsit and defendant pleaded nonassumpsit. It appears from the evidence that plaintiff had rented to one Tomlinson a farm and had also sold to lessee certain stock and machinery ■on the place for which he took a judgment note.…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Rice, P. J.,
Under the agreement averred in the statement of claim and testified to on the trial, for the breach of which the action was -brought, it was incumbent on the plaintiff to prove that at one *77time he had title to certain personal property which one Tomlinson had taken away from the leased premises. It was such property only that the defendant agreed to restore. This being so, the plaintiff could not be confined in his proof to the bare assertion that the articles belonged or had. belonged to him. Perhaps he went more into detail than was necessary, but we cannot say that it…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Breneman v. FurnissSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1879
- Rauch v. Scholl & MillerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1871
3Cited by2 opinions
- May v. WalkerSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1902
- Woy v. McCannSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1911