Stryker v. Ross
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Error to the Common Pleas of Huntingdon County to review a judgment on a verdict for tbe plaintiff in an action of trespass quare clausum fregit.
Read the full summary
Error to the Common Pleas of Huntingdon County to review a judgment on a verdict for tbe plaintiff in an action of trespass quare clausum fregit. Tbis is an action of trespass quare clausum fregit, brought by Jobn Ross against W. W. Stryker and others to recover damages for an alleged breach of tbe plaintiff’s close; in other words, it is an action of trespass to recover damages which the plaintiff alleges he has sustained by reason of the defendants’ entering upon his premises and tearing down or destroying a certain shed and taking away certain coal therein, the property of the plaintiff.…
1Opinion of the Court
OpiNioN by
MR. Justice Sterrett:
If it were not for the ruling complained of in the fifth specification of error, this judgment should be affirmed.
Counsel for plaintiff below, on cross-examination of defendants’ witness, put a question calculated to elicit the fact that the arbitrators in this case awarded in favor of his client. This was objected to, but the witness answered, saying: “At the time of this conversation Ross had won this suit before the arbitrators.” The learned judge then refused the request of defendants’ counsel to strike out the question and answer as improper and irrelevant;…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Shaeffer v. KreitzerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1814
- Humphreys v. KellySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1833
3Cited by2 opinions
- Daspit v. EhringerSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1880
- McCarthy v. BerryhillDistrict Court, N.D. California · 2020