Birch v. Conrow

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania April 9, 1894

Birch v. Conrow, 161 Pa. 118 (Pa. 1894)

28 A. 1009; 1894 Pa. LEXIS 646

Dean, Fell, Gbeen, McCollum, Stebrett

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam,

This case depended on questions of fact which were exclusively for the consideration of the jury. To them they were *121fairly submitted by tbe learned trial judge in a clear and concise charge in which there appears to be no substantial error. The only inference that can be fairly drawn from the verdict is that the controlling facts were found in plaintiff’s favor. It follows, therefore, that the judgment entered on the verdict should not be disturbed unless there is error in the instructions complained of in the specifications. We have considered the several questions therein presented and are not convinced that there is any error in either of the answers to defendant’s points for charge recited in said specifications.

Judgment affirmed.

Reference

Cited By: 2 cases
Status: Published
Syllabus: Malicious use of civil process — 'Execution—Damages. In an action to recover damages for a wrongful levy on plaintiff’s goods, there was evidence that the goods had been originally purchased by plaintiff’s father, who had sold them with the other contents of a store to plaintiff ; that the father notified defendants of the sale, and that defendants subsequently sold goods to plaintiff, charging them to him. There was also evidence that the father had stated to defendants that he had transferred his store to his son in order to prevent other creditors from levying upon it. There was testimony for defendants that they had consulted counsel, and had been advised to issue the execution. Held, that the ease was for the jury.