Leach v. Bilcovitch

Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas

Leach v. Bilcovitch

29 Pa. D. & C. 475, 1937 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 300

CourtPennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Lackawanna County

DecidedApril 26, 1937

Docketno. 796

StatusPublished

This text of 29 Pa. D. & C. 475 (Leach v. Bilcovitch) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Lackawanna County primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Leach v. Bilcovitch, 29 Pa. D. & C. 475, 1937 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 300 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1937).

Pincite

Opinion

Leach, P. J.,

Plaintiff sued before the alderman on an implied contract. It appears that he sent a suit to defendant company to be cleaned. Concealed therein was a pocketbook which plaintiff alleges contained $30. The contract given by defendant was to clean clothes and not to receive pocketbooks, and there was no implied authority in the driver of the company to take possession of pocketbooks and money. The duties and responsibilities of a bailee cannot be thrust upon a person without his knowledge or against his consent: Lloyd v. The West Branch Bank, 15 Pa. 172, 175.

McKnight v. Snellenburg & Co., 80 Pa. Superior Ct. 147, cited by plaintiff, is a case where defendant received possession of a diamond ring and gave it out to another person without any proof that she was the owner.

If plaintiff has a remedy at all it is trespass for negligence and not assumpsit, as set forth in this case.

The Act of July 7, 1879, P. L. 194, 42 PS §241, gives aldermen, magistrates, and justices of the peace jurisdiction in actions arising from contract, expressed or implied, and of all actions of trespass, and of trover and conversion. It does not give them jurisdiction in negligence cases. As the alderman had no jurisdiction the common pleas can acquire none on appeal: Birkhead v. [476]*476Ward, 35 Pa. Superior Ct. 235; Seitzinger v. Steinberger, 12 Pa. 379.

Now, April 26, 1937, judgment is entered in favor of defendant and against plaintiff.

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

Leach, P. J.,

Plaintiff sued before the alderman on an implied contract. It appears that he sent a suit to defendant company to be cleaned. Concealed therein was a pocketbook which plaintiff alleges contained $30. The contract given by defendant was to clean clothes and not to receive pocketbooks, and there was no implied authority in the driver of the company to take possession of pocketbooks and money. The duties and responsibilities of a bailee cannot be thrust upon a person without his knowledge or against his consent: Lloyd v. The West Branch Bank, 15 Pa. 172, 175.

McKnight v. Snellenburg & Co., 80 Pa. Superior Ct. 147, cited by plaintiff, is a case where defendant received possession of a diamond ring and gave it out to another person without any proof that she was the owner.

If plaintiff has a remedy at all it is trespass for negligence and not assumpsit, as set forth in this case.

The Act of July 7, 1879, P. L. 194, 42 PS §241, gives aldermen, magistrates, and justices of the peace jurisdiction in actions arising from contract, expressed or implied, and of all actions of trespass, and of trover and conversion. It does not give them jurisdiction in negligence cases. As the alderman had no jurisdiction the common pleas can acquire none on appeal: Birkhead v. [476]*476Ward, 35 Pa. Superior Ct. 235; Seitzinger v. Steinberger, 12 Pa. 379.

Now, April 26, 1937, judgment is entered in favor of defendant and against plaintiff.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

29 Pa. D. & C. 475, 1937 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 300, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/leach-v-bilcovitch-pactcompllackaw-1937.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack