McLaughlin v. Victor Motor Supply Co.
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 101, Oct. T., 1918, by plaintiff, from judgment of O. P. No. 1, Philadelphia Co., March T., 1916, No. 4111, in favor of intervenor in the case of Arthur L. McLaughlin v. Victor Motor Supply Co. and Milton Stern, trading as Auto Transit Co., Intervenor. Replevin for automobile. Before Shoemaker, J. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Superior Court. The court gave binding instructions for intervenor. Plaintiff appealed.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 101, Oct. T., 1918, by plaintiff, from judgment of O. P. No. 1, Philadelphia Co., March T., 1916, No. 4111, in favor of intervenor in the case of Arthur L. McLaughlin v. Victor Motor Supply Co. and Milton Stern, trading as Auto Transit Co., Intervenor. Replevin for automobile. Before Shoemaker, J. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Superior Court. The court gave binding instructions for intervenor. Plaintiff appealed. Error assigned, among others, was refusal to enter judgment for plaintiff n. o. v.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Henderson, J.,
The plaintiff issued a writ of replevin for an automobile, the title to which he claimed. No defense was presented by the defendant, but Milton Stern, doing business as Auto Transit Company, intervened and defended the action, alleging that he was the owner of the car. The trial judge gave binding instructions for the plaintiff, as to the Victor Company, and for the defendant, as to the intervening party. Prom the material evidence, which is not contradicted, it appears that the plaintiff made a contract with one, Stetson, for the purchase of a second-hand automobile…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Welsh v. BellSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1858
- Hand v. MatthewsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1904
- Mitchell v. ZimmermanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1885
- O'Rourke v. BlocksomSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1918
- Callahan v. GorsonSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1916