Warren v. Ulrich

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Warren v. Ulrich, 130 Pa. 413 (Pa. 1889)
18 A. 618; 1889 Pa. LEXIS 1203
Clark, Green, McCollum, Mitchell, Paxson, Sterrett, Williams

Warren v. Ulrich

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam:

The evidence was undoubtedly weak to prove the ownership of this money. There was no positive proof bearing upon this question; but there was a chain of circumstances clearly proved, and not disputed, which render it extremely probable that the money in question had been buried, where it was found, by George Warren, the former owner or occupier of the property. Piad it been found while he remained upon the property, the case would have been much clearer; but it was not found until after his death, and after the premises had been occupied by other tenants for some years. Neither of them claim it, however, and, in view of Warren’s aversion to banks, and his known way of hiding and secreting his money, we are not surprised that the jury found him to have been the owner of it. It is true, the finder of money has title to it against all the world except the true owner; yet we cannot say there was not evidence of *415Warren’s title to submit to the jury, and their verdict is in accordance with all the probabilities of the case.

Judgment affirmed.

Reference

Full Case Name
JOHN WARREN, ADMR. v. JOHN ULRICH
Cited By
6 cases
Status
Published
Syllabus
in an action by an administrator to recover a roll of bank bills found concealed in a cess-pool on premises formerly occupied by the decedent, a chain of circumstances, rendering it extremely probable that the money had been secreted by the decedent where it was found, having been clearly proved and not disputed, a verdict in favor of the plaintiff will not be disturbed, though there was no direct testimony as to ownership.