Rodgers v. Studebaker Sales Co.
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
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
- Paul v. GrimmSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1895
- James Rees & Sons Co. v. Western Exposition SocietySuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1910
- Mull v. Pennsylvania RailroadSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1909
- Opie v. SerrillSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1843
- Wagner v. PetersonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1877
3Cited by10 opinions
- Storey v. CastnerSupreme Court of Delaware · 1973
- Porter v. LeveringSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1938
- McDonald v. First N. B. of McKeesportSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1945
- Weigand v. Standard Motor Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1933
- Drake v. EmhoffSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1941
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.