Reitze v. Meadville & L. Ry. Co.

17 A. 663, 126 Pa. 437, 1889 Pa. LEXIS 895
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided May 13, 1889·No. No. 375·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Pee Curiam:

This action was commenced before a justice of the peace. It was brought to recover damages against the defendant company for killing a horse. Upon appeal to the Common Pleas it expanded into a breach of contract for not maintaining a fence along the right of way or road of the company. While it is true that, upon an appeal from the judgment of a justice of the peace, the case is tried de novo, it is also true the cause of action must remain the same. This has been the law since Moore v. Wait, 1 Binn. 219. The judgment of nonsuit was properly entered.

Affirmed.

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

Reitze v. Meadville & L. Ry. Co., 17 A. 663, 126 Pa. 437, 1889 Pa. LEXIS 895 (Pa. 1889).

17 A. 663 (Reitze v. Meadville & L. Ry. Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Commonwealth v. Nugent
435 A.2d 1298 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1981)
Grumbling v. Motter
77 Pa. D. & C. 382 (Cambria County Court of Common Pleas, 1950)
Schneider v. Bates
49 Pa. Super. 430 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1912)