Legal Opinion

Rodgers v. Studebaker Sales Co.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided April 28, 1931No. Appeal 176PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Keller, J.,

The evidence justified a finding by the jury that the defendant’s agent had taken away the plaintiffs’ automobile for the sole purpose of securing an adjustment on the price, preliminary to a proposed trade-in for a new President eight — it having been appraised in connection with the proposed “trade-in” as a 1926 model instead of a 1927 model, which it had been represented to be when bought by plaintiffs; that without the plaintiffs’ knowledge or consent, and in the absence of the completion of said trade-in or exchange, the defendant had sold the plaintiffs’ car and…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Paul v. GrimmSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1895
  2. James Rees & Sons Co. v. Western Exposition SocietySuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1910
  3. Mull v. Pennsylvania RailroadSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1909
  4. Opie v. SerrillSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1843
  5. Wagner v. PetersonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1877

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Storey v. CastnerSupreme Court of Delaware · 1973
  2. Porter v. LeveringSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1938
  3. McDonald v. First N. B. of McKeesportSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1945
  4. Weigand v. Standard Motor Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1933
  5. Drake v. EmhoffSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1941

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API