Williams v. Smith
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 103, July T., 1892, by defendant, James B. Smith, from judgment of C. P. Montgomery Co., Oct. T., 1891, No. 43, on verdict for plaintiffs, George C. Williams et al. Trespass for conversion of two horses.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 103, July T., 1892, by defendant, James B. Smith, from judgment of C. P. Montgomery Co., Oct. T., 1891, No. 43, on verdict for plaintiffs, George C. Williams et al. Trespass for conversion of two horses. At the trial, before Weand, J., it appeared that Matthias Bennett, a horse drover and dealer, brought a lot of horses to the borough of Jenkintown and stabled them at the hotel kept by defendant in the month of March, 1891. The bargain between defendant and Bennett was that defendant should keep the horses at the rate of thirty cents per day each, Bennett to furnish the bedding.…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Green,
In the charge of the learned court below the jury were instructed as follows: “ Therefore you will see that the plaintiffs in this case were not entitled to the possession of these goods, if Mr. Smith based his refusal to deliver upon the ground that he held them for a board biil on the horses due by Bennett. But if from this testimony you find that his refusal was simply upon the ground that Williams had no title to the property, then the plaintiffs would be entitled to recover, and this is the case in a nutshell.” There was evidence of several witnesses that the…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Fisk Rubber Co. of New York v. Lawer Auto SupplyWyoming Supreme Court · 1926
- Susi v. Belle Acton Stables, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1966
- John Susi v. Belle Acton Stables, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1966