Groetzinger v. Latimer

Alleghany County Court of Common Pleas

Groetzinger v. Latimer

23 A. 393, 146 Pa. 628, 1892 Pa. LEXIS 1270

CourtPennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Alleghany County

DecidedJanuary 4, 1892

DocketNo. 245

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 23 A. 393 (Groetzinger v. Latimer) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Alleghany County primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Groetzinger v. Latimer, 23 A. 393, 146 Pa. 628, 1892 Pa. LEXIS 1270 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1892).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam:

The affidavit of defence does not deny the defendant’s liability for the use and occupation of the warehouse in question, [632]*632but he attempts to set off damages caused by the plaintiff in having “ maliciously, illegally, and wrongfully” issued landlord’s warrants against him, seized his goods, and thereby injured his commercial credit. That the warrant was illegal was settled in Latimer v. Groetzinger, 139 Pa. 207. That case, however, has no further bearing upon this. The matters averred in the affidavit of defence cannot be set off in an action ex contractu, for the reason that they sound in tort and would form the subject of an action ex delicto. It is well settled that matters sounding in tort, arising out of a different transaction, cannot be given in evidence as a set-off: Gogel v. Jacoby, 5 S. & R. 117; and in Ahl v. Rhoads, 84 Pa. 319, it was said by Justice Woodward: “The right of a defendant may be regarded as established, to set off against a plaintiff’s demand, any damages capable of liquidation and for which an independent action ex contractu could be maintained. This may be stated as the general result of the authorities, extending especially from Nickle v. Baldwin, 4 W. & S. 290, to Hunt v. Gilmore, 59 Pa. 450. But, broad and liberal as the construction has been, it has never authorized the admission of proof of damages arising from a technical tort.” The law upon this subject is too well settled to require elaboration.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Per Curiam:

The affidavit of defence does not deny the defendant’s liability for the use and occupation of the warehouse in question, [632]*632but he attempts to set off damages caused by the plaintiff in having “ maliciously, illegally, and wrongfully” issued landlord’s warrants against him, seized his goods, and thereby injured his commercial credit. That the warrant was illegal was settled in Latimer v. Groetzinger, 139 Pa. 207. That case, however, has no further bearing upon this. The matters averred in the affidavit of defence cannot be set off in an action ex contractu, for the reason that they sound in tort and would form the subject of an action ex delicto. It is well settled that matters sounding in tort, arising out of a different transaction, cannot be given in evidence as a set-off: Gogel v. Jacoby, 5 S. & R. 117; and in Ahl v. Rhoads, 84 Pa. 319, it was said by Justice Woodward: “The right of a defendant may be regarded as established, to set off against a plaintiff’s demand, any damages capable of liquidation and for which an independent action ex contractu could be maintained. This may be stated as the general result of the authorities, extending especially from Nickle v. Baldwin, 4 W. & S. 290, to Hunt v. Gilmore, 59 Pa. 450. But, broad and liberal as the construction has been, it has never authorized the admission of proof of damages arising from a technical tort.” The law upon this subject is too well settled to require elaboration.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

23 A. 393, 146 Pa. 628, 1892 Pa. LEXIS 1270, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/groetzinger-v-latimer-pactcomplallegh-1892.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack