Gray v. Griffith

10 Watts 431
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided September 15, 1840·Published·Cited by 8 cases

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Sergeant, J.

Had there been a count in the declaration for money had and received, the charge of the court would have been right, in stating that the plaintiff could waive the tortious conversion of the genuine scythes, and recover in assumpsit; for the plaintiff might go for the money, which the scythes might be presumed to have been sold for by the defendant. But the declaration, so far as it can embrace these articles, charges the defendant as purchaser, and there is no evidence that he ever was such; on the contrary, he uniformly denied this character, and his tortious acts will not authorize the viewing him as such. We, therefore, think the judgment must be reversed, and a venire facias de novo be awarded.

Judgment reversed and venire facias de novo awarded.

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

Gray v. Griffith, 10 Watts 431 (Pa. 1840).

10 Watts 431 (Gray v. Griffith) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

McDonald v. First N. B. of McKeesport
44 A.2d 265 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1945)
Bratspis v. Kaplan
82 Pa. Super. 542 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1923)
Mann v. United States
32 Ct. Cl. 580 (Court of Claims, 1897)
Kellam v. Kellam
94 Pa. 225 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1879)
Bethlehem Borough v. Perseverance Fire Co.
81 Pa. 445 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1876)
Barrett v. Koella
2 F. Cas. 927 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Wisconsin, 1857)
McCullough v. McCullough
14 Pa. 295 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1850)
Beals v. See
10 Pa. 56 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1848)