Case Name: Berman v. C. I. T. Corporation, Appellant
Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1936-07-10
Citations: 122 Pa. Super. 130
Docket Number: Appeal, No. 149
Parties: Berman v. C. I. T. Corporation, Appellant.
Judges: Before Keller, P. J., Cunningham, Baldrige, Stadteeld, Parker, James and Rhodes, JJ.
Reporter: Pennsylvania Superior Court Reports
Volume: 122
Pages: 130–131

Head Matter:
Berman v. C. I. T. Corporation, Appellant.
Argued May 6,1936.
Before Keller, P. J., Cunningham, Baldrige, Stadteeld, Parker, James and Rhodes, JJ.
Abraham, Pervin, with him Sachs & Gapian, for appellant.
Emanuel Goldberg, for appellee.
July 10, 1936:

Opinion:
Per Curiam,
The facts in this case, as disclosed by the evidence, are very similar to—in fact, almost identical with— those in the case of Stone v. C. I. T. Corporation,— (this defendant), 122 Pa. Superior Ct. 71, 184 A. 674. The main difference is in the form of action. That was in trespass, while this is replevin. Exemplary or punitive damages may also be recovered in replevin. See Ladner v. Forman & Friess, 107 Pa. Superior Ct. 245, 163 A. 359; Herdic v. Young, 55 Pa. 176.
The Stone case justifies the submission of the question of punitive damages to the jury. The Ladner and Herdic eases support the position that it is not necessary to separate punitive from compensatory damages in the verdict.
Judgment affirmed.