Automobile Finance Co. v. Markman

Superior Court of Pennsylvania December 10, 1923

Automobile Finance Co. v. Markman, 82 Pa. Super. 478 (1923)

1924 Pa. Super. LEXIS 11

Orlad, Porter, Henderson, Trexler, Keller, Linn, Gawthrop

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam,

This is an appeal by the plaintiff from the decree of the court below discharging a rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. “It must be a very plain case of error in law, if we sustain appeals in such cases as this, from the decree of the common pleas discharging the rule”: ¿Etna Insurance Co. v. Confer, 158 Pa. 604. The opinion filed by Judge Gordon, of the court below, upon discharging the rule, renders unnecessary further discussion of the question involved.

The appeal is dismissed at the cost of the plaintiff, ■ but without prejudice to his right to a trial by jury, and a second appeal after final judgment.

Reference

Full Case Name: Automobile Finance Company, Appellant, v. P. H. Markman, Jr., I. Hanstein, Justice Hanstein and Thomas Rodgers, Trading as S. C. Rodgers Carriage Company
Cited By: 6 cases
Status: Published
Syllabus: Replevin — Bailments — Automobiles — Repairs by bailee — Affidavit of defense — Sufficiency. In an action of replevin to recover possession of an automobile, an affidavit of defense by bailees is sufficient which alleges that the automobile was left in their charge for repairs, with the knowledge of the plaintiff and under circumstances which would imply its consent. The appellate court will only sustain appeals from decrees of the courts of common pleas, discharging rules for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense, in cases of clear and manifest error in law.