We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.
Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.
892 Lewis M. Swaab, Cross Examination.
of the license contract under which he operated his business, the damages which it is possible for him to recover may be inconsiderable, but we cannot say as a matter of law that they would be merely nominal. These assignments are overruled.
The eleventh assignment calls attention to the refusal of a point for charge, submitted by the plaintiff, which was tantamount to a request for binding instructions. Much that we have already said in disposing of the fifth, sixth and seventh assignments is applicable to the present one and need not be repeated here. The assignment is overruled.
The twelfth assignment complains of the affirmance of a point to the effect that, if the jury finds for the defendant and further finds "that the taking was attended by circumstances of aggravation, vexation and hardship, exemplary damages are allowable." We have already said, under the third and fourth assignments, that the evidence failed to show any unusual oppression at the time the goods were taken under the writ. In the nature of things, when the sheriff's officers came to the defendant's place of business the proceeding was bound to cause him inconvenience; but they did not remain an unusual time, and the fact that a watchman was left in charge for some days afterwards, pending the determination of certain legal steps taken by the defendant, was in nowise out of the ordinary ; furthermore, the five men who helped the sheriff's officers find the goods covered by the writ were representatives of the Patents Company and not of the plaintiff. The earning away of some boxes, etc., belonging to the defendant, in connection with the replevined films, could not be termed an act of outrage under the circumstances; the articles were returned the next day, and if the taking caused any special damage the defendant was entitled to prove and recover his loss as such. When upon the stand, in answer to the question, "I am asking you how, as a physical fact, at your place, you were in any way interfered with in the transaction of your business, except as to these reels which were the subject of this replevin?" The defendant replied, "There was no other interference." In Cunimings v. Gann, 52 Pa., 484, an action of replevin, at page 491, we said, "It must be a rare case of misconduct * * * in an action like this to authorize them (exemplary damages) at all," and in McCabe v. Morehead, 1 W. & S. 513, p. 516, we said, "The defendant is not entitled to any special damages