Legal Opinion

Gump v. McDaniel

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided April 18, 1910No. Appeal, No. 225PublishedCited by 1 opinion

Read the full summary

Appeal, No. 225, Oct. T., 1908, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. Bedford Co., Sept. T., 1908, No. 137, on verdict for plaintiff non obstante veredicto in case of H. Frank Gump et al., trading as H. Frank Gump & Sons, v. W. W. McDaniel. Sheriff’s interpleader to determine the ownership of a traction engine. Before Shull, P. J., specially presiding. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Superior Court. Plaintiff presented the following points: 4. That the verdict of the jury must be for Gump & Sons, the plaintiff, unless there was actual fraud or fraud in fact in the contract of sale,…

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Morrision, J.,

In the winter of 1903 and 1904, W. E. Clark purchased a secondhand traction engine and took possession of it. In March, 1907, he sold and delivered it to Hockenberry and Decker for $800 and they kept it for about six months, when they resold it to Clark for $600. It was then on the premises of George Weicht, about five miles from Clark’s'home, and he was to get the engine at Weicht’s. But in fact he did not remove the engine from that place. In November or December, 1907, the engine being out of repair, Clark leased it to Wallace & Garlick; they were to put it in…

2Cases cited16 opinions

Stephens v. GiffordSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1890
McKibbin v. MartinSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1870
Werner v. ZierfussSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1894
Mead v. ConroeSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1886
Garretson v. Hackenberg, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Potter County1891

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

3Cited by1 opinion

Mosher v. Grange National Bank, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Susquehanna County1926