Snively v. Fahnestock

Goldsborough, J., delivered the opinion of this court. This action was brought by the appellee against the appellants, for that they converted to their own use, and wrongfully deprived the appellee, of the use and possession of her piano. The appellants, by their joint plea, denied that they, committed the wrong alleged. At the trial of the cause, after the evidence had been submit ted to the jury, the defendants offered the following prayers: “The counsel for the defendants prays the court to instruct? the jury, that there is no evidence in this case that Adam Snively, one of the defendants with John Keys, deprived the-plaintiff of the use and possession of the plaintiff’s goods, nor that said Snively, with said Keys, converted the plaintiff’s said goods to the use of. said Snively and said Keys, and that, as-against said Snively, said plaintiff is not entitled to recover in this case. “2nd. .The defendant-further prays the court to instruct the-jury, that if they believe that.damages were sustained by the1 ³⁹⁵ plaintiff by reason of the act of the defendant, Keys, one of the defendants (Keys and Snively) complained of in this case, that then the plaintiff is entitled to recover only such damages as the jury may find, from the evidence, were actually sustained by said plaintiff.” Which prayers the court rejected, but instructed the jury, that “if the jury shall find from all the evidence in this cause, (and find the same to be true,) that at the time of the judgments and execution issued in this case, and provided the jury find the same to have been rendered and issued, the property (a piano) was then in the possession of Mrs. Fahnestock, and so held by her under a bona fide bill of sale or deed, which was of record, and that she held it under this title, then the right of property and possession of the same was absolutely in her, and the defendant in seizing the said piano under a magistrate’s execution, has been guilty of a trespass, for which the plaintiff'is entitled to such damages as the jury may find upon all the facts and circumstances of this case.” To the rejection of the defendants’ prayers, and to the instruction of the court, the defendants excepted.

As there was no evidence, whatever, that Adam Snively participated in depriving the appellee of the use and possession of the