Esher v. Flagler

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Esher v. Flagler

17 Serg. & Rawle 141, 1828 Pa. LEXIS 5

DecidedJanuary 27, 1828

StatusPublished

This text of 17 Serg. & Rawle 141 (Esher v. Flagler) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Esher v. Flagler, 17 Serg. & Rawle 141, 1828 Pa. LEXIS 5 (Pa. 1828).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Where the declaration and the transcript agree ' in substance, we will disregard variances in form. Justices of th'e peace are not familiar with technical distinctions; and it would'be monstrous to suffer an error in the style of the action to deprive a party of his appeal. It, however, happens here, that the justice was even technically accurate in his notion of the action, which he styles, “ trespass for holding and detaining a horse and selling him contrary to law:” in other words, trespass on the case on promises, which is exactly the form of the action in the Court of Common Pleas, the plaintiff having counted for money had and received. Prom this one would be tempted to believe the justice had in his mind’s eye the familiar case of Longchamps v. Kenny, in which the price of a masquerade ticket, owned by the plaintiff, but sold by the defendant, was recovered in this form. But, wherever the,justice had-jurisdiction, in any shape, of the cause of action laid in the declaration, we will suffer no misconception of form to stand in the ¡way of the .appeal.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Per Curiam.

Where the declaration and the transcript agree ' in substance, we will disregard variances in form. Justices of th'e peace are not familiar with technical distinctions; and it would'be monstrous to suffer an error in the style of the action to deprive a party of his appeal. It, however, happens here, that the justice was even technically accurate in his notion of the action, which he styles, “ trespass for holding and detaining a horse and selling him contrary to law:” in other words, trespass on the case on promises, which is exactly the form of the action in the Court of Common Pleas, the plaintiff having counted for money had and received. Prom this one would be tempted to believe the justice had in his mind’s eye the familiar case of Longchamps v. Kenny, in which the price of a masquerade ticket, owned by the plaintiff, but sold by the defendant, was recovered in this form. But, wherever the,justice had-jurisdiction, in any shape, of the cause of action laid in the declaration, we will suffer no misconception of form to stand in the ¡way of the .appeal.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

17 Serg. & Rawle 141, 1828 Pa. LEXIS 5, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/esher-v-flagler-pa-1828.