Equitable Credit Co. v. Stephany
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam,
The opinion of Judge O’Toole refusing the plaintiff’s motion for judgment non obstante veredicto, which appears in the reporter’s statement, correctly and satis factorily disposes of the questions raised by the appellant. The plaintiff in its statement based its right of action on its ownership of the automobiles and its leasing of them on bailment lease to Stephany and Miss Robb, respectively. Judge O’Toole’s opinion shows the invalidity of such claim. Reliance was not placed in the statement on any Men or encumbrance held by it. The automobiles were not held by the plaintiff in…
2Cited by8 opinions
- Anderson v. Automobile FundSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1978
- Atlantic Finance Corp. v. KesterSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1944
- In re BerlinCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1945
- Mellon National Bank & Trust Co. v. CabinSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1955
- Discount & Credit Corp. v. Ortman, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County1944
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.