DeGeyter v. Keller

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

DeGeyter v. Keller

68 Pa. Super. 419, 1917 Pa. Super. LEXIS 139

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedDecember 13, 1917

DocketAppeal, No. 88

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 68 Pa. Super. 419 (DeGeyter v. Keller) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

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

Pincite

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

68 Pa. Super. 419, 1917 Pa. Super. LEXIS 139, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/degeyter-v-keller-pasuperct-1917.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack