Smith v. Bellows

77 Pa. 441, 1875 Pa. LEXIS 73
CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania
DecidedMarch 1, 1875
DocketNo. 1
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 77 Pa. 441 (Smith v. Bellows) 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
Smith v. Bellows, 77 Pa. 441, 1875 Pa. LEXIS 73 (Pa. 1875).

Opinion

Chief Justice Agotsw

delivered the opinion of the court,

A careful examination of this record discloses no error for which the judgment should be reversed. In the view of the case taken by the plaintiff in error, that the action lay against the company only, there would be force in some of the exceptions taken at the trial. But the evidence of the plaintiff below presented a case of individual overreaching on part of the defendant, and it was so submitted to the jury, whose verdict establishes this view of the defendant’s conduct. In that light we discover no error in the manner the case was treated. If the evidence were insufficient to support this view, or its weight fell upon the other side, the remedy of the defendant was in the court below.

We discover no error in the change of the form of action. The test is in the cause of action, not the Statute of Limitations. If the cause of action is the same declared upon then the suit, quoad it, was brought in time. If the cause of action was not the same, [448]*448then the action was not brought for it, and the Statute of Limitations would fairly apply. The fact that the first narr. was for money had and received (this being the material count), did not make the change from assumpsit to case in deceit, necessarily a change in the cause of action. The same circumstances of fraudulent imposition, showing that the defendant had obtained the money of the plaintiff, which ex equo et bono, he ought to return, would support either form of action.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Related

Frankel v. Styer
209 F. Supp. 509 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1962)
Neff v. Daniel J. Keating Co.
16 Pa. D. & C.2d 465 (Delaware County Court of Common Pleas, 1958)
Skelly Oil Co. v. Universal Oil Products Co.
86 N.E.2d 875 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1949)
Hartford-Empire Co. v. Shawkee Mfg. Co.
163 F.2d 474 (Third Circuit, 1947)
Pennsylvania Railroad v. Pittsburgh
6 A.2d 907 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1939)
Leland v. Firemen's Insurance
193 A. 475 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1937)
Vuletich v. Highspire Flour Mills, Inc.
23 Pa. D. & C. 488 (Dauphin County Court of Common Pleas, 1935)
Nock v. Coca Cola Bot. Wks. Pgh.
156 A. 537 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1931)
Spiegel v. Magill
15 Pa. D. & C. 566 (Westmoreland County Court of Common Pleas, 1930)
Kaufmann's Estate
141 A. 852 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1928)
West Homestead Borough v. Erbeck
86 A. 773 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1913)
Thompson v. Chambers
13 Pa. Super. 213 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1900)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
77 Pa. 441, 1875 Pa. LEXIS 73, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-bellows-pa-1875.