Automobile Securities Co. v. Scungio
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
1Dissent
Dissenting Opinion by
Gawthrop, J.
I am unable to concur in the conclusion of the majority that the court below was justified in directing a verdict for the defendant. The fourth section of the Act of April 19, 1901, P. L. 89, requires plaintiff to file a declaration which shall consist of a concise statement of his demand, “setting forth the facts upon which his title to the goods and chattels is based.” The declaration avers title in plaintiff by purchase from the Automobile Storage & Sales Company and the unlawful detention of the car by Scungio — defendant. Plaintiff proved its title by…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Drumgoole v. LyleSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1906
- Bankers' Commercial Security Co. v. BrennanSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1920
- Heisley v. Economy Tool Manufacturing Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1907
- M. E. Pickering Co. v. Friedman Realty Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1914