Fenner v. Smyth
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 303, Oct. T., 1914, by defendant, from judgment of Municipal Court, Philadelphia Co., April T., 1914, No. 1, for plaintiff on case tried by the court without a jury in case of William D. Fenner v. Joseph J. Smyth. Trespass for the conversion of an automobile. Before Gilpin, J. At the trial the following agreement between plaintiff and defendant was offered in evidence: “This is to certify that Jos. J. Smyth and Wm.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 303, Oct. T., 1914, by defendant, from judgment of Municipal Court, Philadelphia Co., April T., 1914, No. 1, for plaintiff on case tried by the court without a jury in case of William D. Fenner v. Joseph J. Smyth. Trespass for the conversion of an automobile. Before Gilpin, J. At the trial the following agreement between plaintiff and defendant was offered in evidence: “This is to certify that Jos. J. Smyth and Wm. D. Fenner are the joint owners of an automobile known as the “Apperson.” “That the said automobile is now in, the possession of Jos. J. Smyth. “That the said Jos. J.…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Kepi-iart, J.,
This action is for the conversion of an automobile. Appellant’s chief complaint rests on the admission of evidence which he avers tended to contradict the alleged written declaration of joint ownership. We are not satisfied that this writing is entirely free from doubt. Appellee contends that it is in effect a contract of bailment. It may be fairly argued that its concluding paragraph stated a debt presently due the appellant, and that the obligation on the part of the appellee to pay the storage and upkeep of the car, and the appellant’s possession of the car, are…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Bickley v. BickleySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1982
- Sarver's EstateSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1938