Legal Opinion

Com. of Pa. v. Day

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided March 12, 1934No. Appeal 23 and 24PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

James, J.,

The defendants were charged with the fraudulent conversion of an automobile and the proceeds thereof, and also with the larceny by bailee of that ear. At the first trial, held December 11, 1929, it appeared that the defendants were partners in the automobile business. Harry A. Hartzell, prosecutor, purchased from the defendants, January 2, 1929, an Auburn Cabriolet automobile, giving in payment a Studebaker car and $1,000 in cash. A few days later the manager of the defendants told Hartzell that they had a quick sale for a car like the one Hartzell had bought, to a, man by…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. CurrySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1926
  2. Commonwealth v. SimpsonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1932
  3. McCreary v. CommonwealthSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1857
  4. Commonwealth v. BeidermanSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1933
  5. Girts v. CommonwealthSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1853

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. SamuelsSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1975
  2. Commonwealth v. MoonSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1942
  3. Commonwealth v. FoxSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1956
  4. Commonwealth v. TownsendSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1950
  5. Commonwealth v. HainesSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1982

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

Powered by the Exa API