Bankers-Commercial Sec. Co. v. Greer

• Decision Date: 21 November 1921
• Docket Number: 25-1921
• Citation: 77 Pa.Super. 458
• Parties: Bankers-Commercial Security Co. v. Greer et al., Appellants
• Court: Pennsylvania Superior Court

77 Pa.Super. 458

Bankers-Commercial Security Co. v. Greer et al., Appellants

No. 25-1921

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

November 21, 1921

Argued October 6, 1921

Appeal by intervening defendant, from judgment of C.P. No. 4, Phila. Co.-1919, No. 107, in favor of the plaintiff in the case of Bankers-Commercial Security Company, Inc., a corporation created by and existing under the Laws of the State of New York, v. Austin G. Greer, Jr., Defendant, and George J Knapp, Intervening Defendant.

Replevin to recover possession of a motor truck. Before Audenried, P J.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Superior Court.

The court directed a verdict in favor of the plaintiff in the sum of $ 1,311.40 and judgment was entered thereon. The intervening defendant appealed.

Error assigned, among others, was in directing a verdict for the plaintiff.

Affirmed.

A. E Hurshman, for appellant.

C. W. VanArtsdalen, for appellee.

Before Orlady, P. J., Porter, Henderson, Trexler, Keller and Linn, JJ.

OPINION

HENDERSON, J.

The controversy in this case arose out of a lease, in writing, of a motor truck. The lessor was L. E. Watson Company, and the lessee, Austin G. Greer, Jr. The lease was executed September 18, 1917. Possession of the truck was delivered to the lessee and the lessor's interest in the contract was acquired by the plaintiff. The lessee after having used the truck for several months, returned it to Watson Company. Default having been made by the lessee in the payment of monthly installments of rent, the plaintiff caused the writ to be issued in this action to recover the truck. It was found in possession of the intervening defendant, who is the appellant.

At the trial, the plaintiff made out a prima facie title to the property by evidence that it became the owner of the lessor's interest in the contract through a regular assignment of the lease. The learned trial judge gave binding instructions for the plaintiff for the reason that the appellant failed to introduce evidence tending to establish a title in himself. This instruction was proper under the evidence.

It is not disputed that Greer took possession of the truck when the lease was made with the Watson Company, and that immediately thereafter the Watson Company assigned the lease to the Bankers-Commercial Corporation, to whose rights the plaintiff company lawfully succeeded. As a result of these transactions, the Watson...