Heist v. Tarbet

Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas

Heist v. Tarbet

1 Pa. Just. L. Rep. 12

CourtPennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Montgomery County

DecidedMarch 15, 1902

DocketNo. 88

StatusPublished

This text of 1 Pa. Just. L. Rep. 12 (Heist v. Tarbet) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Montgomery County primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Heist v. Tarbet, 1 Pa. Just. L. Rep. 12 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1902).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Swartz, P- J.

BY THE COURT — The exceptions that the transcript does not sufficiently set forth the cause of action cannot be sustained. The Justice’s return shows that “the defendant got into and took possession of the plaintiff’s house without his knowledge or consent” and the plaintiff by his testimony before the Justice shows further that the defendant continued to keep “forcible detention of the house.” Under Hobbs v. Geiss, 13 S. & R., 417, this is a charge of trespass within the jurisdiction of the Justice of the Peace.

The remaining exceptions are without merit.

There is not a second action for the same trespass.

Where there is a continuing trespass there may be successive actions for damages. In each case the recovery is limited to the damage sustained subsequently to the last preceding action.

And now, May 19, 1902, the exceptions are dismissed and the proceedings before the Justice are sustained.

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

Opinion by

Swartz, P- J.

BY THE COURT — The exceptions that the transcript does not sufficiently set forth the cause of action cannot be sustained. The Justice’s return shows that “the defendant got into and took possession of the plaintiff’s house without his knowledge or consent” and the plaintiff by his testimony before the Justice shows further that the defendant continued to keep “forcible detention of the house.” Under Hobbs v. Geiss, 13 S. & R., 417, this is a charge of trespass within the jurisdiction of the Justice of the Peace.

The remaining exceptions are without merit.

There is not a second action for the same trespass.

Where there is a continuing trespass there may be successive actions for damages. In each case the recovery is limited to the damage sustained subsequently to the last preceding action.

And now, May 19, 1902, the exceptions are dismissed and the proceedings before the Justice are sustained.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 Pa. Just. L. Rep. 12, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/heist-v-tarbet-pactcomplmontgo-1902.