Hoffman v. Auto Security Co.
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 197, Oet. T., 1920, by plaintiffs, from judgment of Municipal Court of Philadelphia, April T., 1920, No. 113, in favor of defendant for want of a sufficient statement of claim in the case of James E. Hoffman and Mrs. James E. Hoffman v. Auto Security Company, a corporation. Rule for judgment for want of a sufficient statement of claim. Before MoNichol, J. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Superior Court. The court made absolute the rule.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 197, Oet. T., 1920, by plaintiffs, from judgment of Municipal Court of Philadelphia, April T., 1920, No. 113, in favor of defendant for want of a sufficient statement of claim in the case of James E. Hoffman and Mrs. James E. Hoffman v. Auto Security Company, a corporation. Rule for judgment for want of a sufficient statement of claim. Before MoNichol, J. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Superior Court. The court made absolute the rule. Plaintiffs appealed. Error assigned was the order of the court. The statement of claim was sufficient: El Dorado Jewelry Company v.…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Trexler, J.,
The plaintiffs sue for the recovery of the amount paid on the purchase price of an automobile. The defendant *526raises tbe question that tbe statement filed by tbe plaintiffs presents no cause of action. Tbe allegations contained in tbe plaintiffs’ statement are briefly as follows:
That they went to tbe place of business of tbe Gorson Automobile Company to buy an autotruck for tbe purposes wbicb were made known to tbe Gorson company or its agents; that tbe sum of $1,000 was tbe price fixed for tbe truck and upon this, they paid tbe sum of $300 and were told by tbe Gorson…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Land v. Automobile Finance Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1919