Davis v. Funk
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Error to the District Court of Philadelphia. This was an action of trover by Richards, whose administrator, Funk, was afterwards substituted, against Davis, for a promissory note for $1100, dated April 4th 1857, made by one Crees, payable in four months, to the order of Morgan H. Jones, who endorsed to Howard Tilden, by whom it was endorsed in blank.
Read the full summary
Error to the District Court of Philadelphia. This was an action of trover by Richards, whose administrator, Funk, was afterwards substituted, against Davis, for a promissory note for $1100, dated April 4th 1857, made by one Crees, payable in four months, to the order of Morgan H. Jones, who endorsed to Howard Tilden, by whom it was endorsed in blank. The ease was this: — Richards, the owner of the note mentioned in the declaration, being desirous of selling it, intrusted it to one Riley, by whom Edward S. Jones, whose business was that of a note broker, was employed and intrusted with the…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered,
by Thompson, J.
No question was made on the trial below as to the form of action, and there is nothing on the record to raise it now. That trover will lie for a wrongful conversion of bonds, bills, notes, stocks, title-papers, and the like, has been too often determined by the courts to be now doubted: Biddle v. Bayard, 1 Harris 150; Pittsburgh and Connellsville Railroad Company v. *250Barker, 5 Casey 160; Lockwood v. Bull, 1 Cowen 322; Stearns v. Marsh, 4 Denio 227.
The note, for the recovery of which this action was brought, was pledged by a broker, with…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Stearns v. MarshNew York Supreme Court · 1847
3Cited by2 opinions
- Berberich's EstateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1917
- Wilson v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Clearfield County1935