Laverty v. Vanarsdale

65 Pa. 507, 1870 Pa. LEXIS 264
CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania
DecidedMay 12, 1870
DocketNo. 63
StatusPublished
Cited by23 cases

This text of 65 Pa. 507 (Laverty v. Vanarsdale) 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
Laverty v. Vanarsdale, 65 Pa. 507, 1870 Pa. LEXIS 264 (Pa. 1870).

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered, July 7th 1870, by

Read, J.

This is an action upon the case, in the nature of a conspiracy against the defendants, for falsely and maliciously combining and conspiring to prevent the plaintiff from obtaining employment as a school teacher, and by reason of which combination and conspiracy he was deprived of employment as a school teacher, and prevented from earning support for himself and family as such. The damage sustained by the plaintiff is the ground of the action, not the conspiracy. “ Where the action is brought against two or more, as concerned in the wrong done, it is necessary, in order to recover against all of them, to prove a combination or joint act of all. For this purpose it may be important to establish the allegation of a conspiracy. But if it turn out on the trial that only one was concerned, the plaintiff [510]*510may still recover, the same as if such one had been sued alone. The conspiracy or combination is nothing, so far as sustaining the action goes, the foundation of it being the actual damage done to the party:” Hutchins v. Hutchins, 7 Hill 104; Jones v. Baker, 7 Cowen 445; Parker v. Huntington, 2 Gray 124.

The court was therefore. clearly in error in saying there could be no recovery against one only.

There was also error in the admission of the evidence mentioned in the 2d assignment of errors.

Judgment reversed, and venire de novo awarded.

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

Related

Stringfellow v. Stringfellow
24 Pa. D. & C.3d 711 (Adams County Court of Common Pleas, 1982)
BAKER v. RANGOS
324 A.2d 498 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1974)
Cales v. Rushing
1958 OK 12 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1958)
Mining Securities Co. v. Wall
45 P.2d 302 (Montana Supreme Court, 1935)
Van Gilder Et Ux. v. Bower
171 A. 600 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1934)
Diver v. Miller
148 A. 291 (Superior Court of Delaware, 1929)
Reading National Bank v. Sacks
12 Pa. D. & C. 320 (Berks County Court of Common Pleas, 1929)
Johnston v. Venturini
294 F. 836 (Third Circuit, 1923)
Landau v. Hostetter
109 A. 478 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1920)
Dickson v. Lights
170 S.W. 834 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1914)
Burford v. Richards
58 Pa. Super. 15 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1914)
Robinson v. Van Hooser
196 F. 620 (Sixth Circuit, 1912)
James v. Evans
149 F. 136 (Third Circuit, 1906)
Miller v. Fulmer
25 Pa. Super. 106 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1904)
Dutton v. Lansdowne Borough
48 A. 494 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1901)
Oakes v. Oakes
55 A.D. 576 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1900)
Dutton v. Borough of Lansdowne
10 Pa. Super. 204 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1899)
Fillman v. Ryon
32 A. 89 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1895)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
65 Pa. 507, 1870 Pa. LEXIS 264, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/laverty-v-vanarsdale-pa-1870.