Wilson v. Malenock

Citation194 A. 508
PartiesWILSON v. MALENOCK.
Decision Date13 October 1937
CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania
194 A. 508

WILSON
v.
MALENOCK.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

October 13, 1937.


Appeal No. 269, April term, 1937, from judgment of County Court, Allegheny County, No. 930 of 1936; Sara M. Soffel, Judge.

Trespass by George R. Wilson against M. B. Malenock for converting plaintiff's automobile by refusing to deliver it to plaintiff until bill for repairs made by defendant had been paid. Judgment for plaintiff for $106, and defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

Argued before KELLER, P. J., and CUNNINGHAM, BALDRIGE, STADTFELD, PARKER, JAMES, and RHODES, JJ.

A. G Christiansen, of Pittsburgh, for appellant. Ronald D. Negley and Negley, Negley & Patterson, all of Pittsburgh, for appellee.

CUNNINGHAM, Judge.

The dispute in this case was whether the defendant, an auto-body repairman who rebuilt plaintiff's car, had a common-law lien for the cost of the repairs, or, by contract, waived his lien and was therefore liable to plaintiff in an action of trespass for converting the car through refusing to deliver it to him until the repair bill was paid.

The back of plaintiff's 1930 Chevrolet car was damaged on April 14, 1936, as the result of a collision with a car owned by one Brock. Brock promised plaintiff to pay for the repairs to plaintiff's car, and, through his wife, told plaintiff to take the damaged car to defendant's garage; plaintiff did so on April 18th although he had not known defendant previously.

As a result of a conversation with defendant, the details of, and circumstances surrounding which, give rise to the crucial point in this case, plaintiff left his car with defendant who repaired it some two weeks later. Plaintiff made written demand for the return of the car on July 16, 1936; defendant replied by giving written notice of his alleged common-law lien for repairs in the amount of $46 and of his intention to sell under the Act of May 7, 1925, P.L. 557, 6 P.S. § 11, if the lien was not paid.

194 A. 509

Plaintiff subsequently brought this action of trespass based on the theory of a conversion of his car by defendant. The court below, Soffel, J., sitting without a jury, found for plaintiff for the value of the car, as repaired, at the time of defendant's refusal to redeliver, namely $106. The basis for the decision of the court below was its finding of fact "that Malenock agreed to repair Wilson's car, the understanding being that the cost of the repairs was to be paid solely by Brock." The trial court concluded that defendant had no common-law lien because "there were no contractual relations between the owner of the property and the person claiming the lien out of which the implication of [the] existence of [a] common law lien [might arise]."

It is plain in this state that, in absence of circumstances showing a contrary intention, a person who repairs a chattel at the instance of the owner, or his authorized agent, has a common-law lien or right to retain possession of the chattel until paid. In McIntyre v. Carver, 2 Watts & S. 392, at page 395, 37 Am.Dec. 519, a carpenter to whom certain doors had been delivered to finish was held to have a common-law lien for the labor bestowed upon the goods, Gibson, C. J., stating: "It is not to be doubted that the law of particular or specific lien on goods in the hands of a tradesman or artisan for the price of work done on them, though there is no trace of its recognition in our own books, was brought hither by our ancestors; and that it is a part of...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT