DeGeyter v. Keller

68 Pa. Super. 419, 1917 Pa. Super. LEXIS 139
Superior Court of Pennsylvania·Decided December 13, 1917·No. Appeal, No. 88·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Opinion by

Kephart, J.,

This is an action for malicious use of a civil process. In all such actions it is necessary to show that the person has acted maliciously, without reasonable or probable cause: Mayer v. Walter, 64 Pa. 283. The evidence shows that the plaintiff was wrongfully ejected from the premises by a writ issuing on a judgment that had no legal foundation. It was entered on a warrant of attorney that had been exhausted by a prior entry of a judgment in ejectment for the same premises. There is sufficient testimony from which the jury might find that the defendant acted maliciously and without reasonable or probable cause. The testimony complained of was proper for the consideration of the jury and the assign[421]*421ments of error to the charge of the court are without merit!

The judgment is affirmed at the cost of the appellant.

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

DeGeyter v. Keller, 68 Pa. Super. 419, 1917 Pa. Super. LEXIS 139 (Pa. Ct. App. 1917).

68 Pa. Super. 419 (DeGeyter v. Keller) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Dumont Television & Radio Corp. v. Franklin Electric Co.
154 A.2d 585 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1959)
Baird v. Aluminum Seal Co.
117 F. Supp. 492 (W.D. Pennsylvania, 1953)
Publix Drug Co. v. Breyer Ice Cream Co.
32 A.2d 413 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1943)