Davis v. Panetta

West Virginia Supreme Court

Davis v. Panetta

137 S.E. 656, 103 W. Va. 408, 1927 W. Va. LEXIS 77

CourtWest Virginia Supreme Court

DecidedMarch 22, 1927

Docket5799

StatusPublished

This text of 137 S.E. 656 (Davis v. Panetta) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering West Virginia Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Davis v. Panetta, 137 S.E. 656, 103 W. Va. 408, 1927 W. Va. LEXIS 77 (W. Va. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

*409 Litz, Judge:

This is an action of trespass on the case to recover the value of a certificate for a $1,000 French Government bond belonging to the plaintiff. To the judgment of the circuit court, entered upon a verdict for $951.80 in favor of plaintiff, the defendant prosecutes this writ of error.

The certificate in question was stolen from the safe of the plaintiff in his office at Ursina, Somerset county, Pennsylvania; and afterwards sold by the defendant through the Empire National Bank of Clarksburg, West Yirginia. The only defense offered by the defendant was that he bought the certificate in Clarksburg “of a man who stopped at his hotel for about four days”, without stating what, if anything, he gave for the instrument, or the circumstances of the alleged prirchase. Witnesses for the plaintiff testified to a statement, made by the defendant prior to the trial, that he had purchased the paper in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

The defendant complains of two instructions granted at the instance of the plaintiff on the ground that they submitted to the jury the issue of whether or not the certificate was negotiable, a question of law which should have been determined by the court. “While it is generally error to submit pure questions of law to the jury, still such error does not call for reversal, if it is clearly apparent that it has worked no prejudice to the party complaining.” Runnion v. Morrison, 71 W. Va. 254. As the defendant did not offer appreciable evidence tending to show that he was a purchaser of the stolen instrument for value without notice, it would have been proper to grant a peremptory instruction in favor of the plaintiff. Maryland Finance Corporation v. Peoples Bank of Keyser, 99 W. Va. 230; Merchants Bank & Trust Company v. Peoples Bank of Keyser, 99 W. Va. 544. The defendant w;as therefore not injured by the instructions complained of.

The judgment of the circuit court is, therefore, affirmed.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

*409 Litz, Judge:

This is an action of trespass on the case to recover the value of a certificate for a $1,000 French Government bond belonging to the plaintiff. To the judgment of the circuit court, entered upon a verdict for $951.80 in favor of plaintiff, the defendant prosecutes this writ of error.

The certificate in question was stolen from the safe of the plaintiff in his office at Ursina, Somerset county, Pennsylvania; and afterwards sold by the defendant through the Empire National Bank of Clarksburg, West Yirginia. The only defense offered by the defendant was that he bought the certificate in Clarksburg “of a man who stopped at his hotel for about four days”, without stating what, if anything, he gave for the instrument, or the circumstances of the alleged prirchase. Witnesses for the plaintiff testified to a statement, made by the defendant prior to the trial, that he had purchased the paper in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

The defendant complains of two instructions granted at the instance of the plaintiff on the ground that they submitted to the jury the issue of whether or not the certificate was negotiable, a question of law which should have been determined by the court. “While it is generally error to submit pure questions of law to the jury, still such error does not call for reversal, if it is clearly apparent that it has worked no prejudice to the party complaining.” Runnion v. Morrison, 71 W. Va. 254. As the defendant did not offer appreciable evidence tending to show that he was a purchaser of the stolen instrument for value without notice, it would have been proper to grant a peremptory instruction in favor of the plaintiff. Maryland Finance Corporation v. Peoples Bank of Keyser, 99 W. Va. 230; Merchants Bank & Trust Company v. Peoples Bank of Keyser, 99 W. Va. 544. The defendant w;as therefore not injured by the instructions complained of.

The judgment of the circuit court is, therefore, affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

137 S.E. 656, 103 W. Va. 408, 1927 W. Va. LEXIS 77, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/davis-v-panetta-wva-1927.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack