Vitagraph Co. v. Swaab

Citations

• 248 Pa. 478
• 94 A. 126
• 1915 Pa. LEXIS 599

Syllabus

<p>Replevin — Act of April 19, 1901, P. L. 88 — Issue—Leases of per. sonal property — Moving picture films — Wrongful seizure by lessor —Alleged conspiracy against defendant — Insufficient proof — Color of right in plaintiff — Prematurity of suit — Verdict for defendant— Measure of damages — Exemplary damages — Nominal damages.</p> <p>1. An issue is a disputed point, and the replevin Act of April 19, 1901, P. L. 88, intends that only the disputed averments of fact in the declaration and affidavit of defense shall make the issues to be passed on by the jury.</p> <p>2. Exemplary damages will be allowed in an action of replevin only in a rare case of misconduct, and when tbe evidence fails to show such misconduct tbe court should not permit exemplary damages. Such misconduct consists in tbe obvious perverting of tbe writ to tbe purpose of a wilful injury, with a full consciousness in tbe plaintiff that be has no claim, or in tbe taking out of tbe writ and claiming and detaining tbe property through malice or for tbe purpose of wanton vexation, or in special circumstances at tbe time of tbe service of tbe writ.</p> <p>3. As a general principle, where a plaintiff has a legal right to a particular remedy it matters not what motives may induce him to assert it.</p> <p>4. In an action of replevin to recover possession of motion picture films, the plaintiff filed a bond and obtained possession of the goods. It appeared from the pleadings and evidence that plaintiff was the owner of the films and had leased them to defendant upon terms which provided that the lease might be terminated by the lessor upon notice to the lessee under certain circumstances ; that the right of possession of the leased films should thereupon revert to the lessor “twenty days after notice of such termination” and after the lease had been rightfully terminated, but before the expiration of the twenty days, plaintiff replevied the goods. Defendant contended that the writ had been sued out by plaintiff