Hower v. Ulrich

Citations

• 156 Pa. 410
• 27 A. 37
• 1893 Pa. LEXIS 1365

Syllabus

<p>Trespass — Trover and conversion — Knowledge.</p> <p>While a parent is not liable for the independent torts of his child, he is liable for trover and conversion committed by his child, where he has knowledge of the act of conversion, and continues to enjoy the benefit of it.</p> <p>Defendant was employed to gather corn and store it in plaintiff’s barn. The corn was gathered by defendant or his family, and there was evidence that some of his children had carried off part of the corn and put it in his own or his wife’s bin. The court charged that “ if somebody else carried it (the corn) away, if the children or family of the defendant, and he was not present and did not aid, abet or counsel them, he would not be guilty. This is an actiofi of trespass, and the defendant must be guilty of the wrongful or tortious act himself, or have advised or assisted in some way, before he can be found guilty.” Meld, that the instruction placed the defendant’s liability upon too narrow a basis, and that the jury should have been instructed that if the corn was taken by any of the defendant’s family under the circumstances charged, then it was not necessary that he should have been present, or ordered, or aided the faking in any way; if ho knew of it, at the time, or afterwards, he was liable for its value in this action.</p> <p>Execution — Attachment—Costs—Practice, C. P.</p> <p>Judgment was entered against a plaintiff for costs. The amount of the judgment was then attached in his hands by a creditor of the defendant. After the date of the attachment, defendant issued a fi. fa. Subsequently the attachment was set aside. Held, that the levy on the fi. fa. should have been set aside, as it had been oppressively issued when plaintiff was in no default, and the subsequent discontinuance of the attachment did not cure the original wrong.</p>