Blair v. Adamchick
| Decision Date | 02 July 1941 |
| Docket Number | 22-1941 |
| Citation | 145 Pa.Super. 125,21 A.2d 107 |
| Parties | Blair, (to use, Appellant) v. Adamchick et al |
| Court | Pennsylvania Superior Court |
Argued April 16, 1941.
Appeal from judgment of C. P. Mercer Co., March T., 1938, No. 123 in case of O. C. Blair to use of Louis Davis d/b/a Sharon Auto Finance Company v. John Adamchick et al.
Replevin. Before Rowley, P. J.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Superior Court.
Verdict in favor of defendant and judgment thereon. Plaintiff appealed.
Error assigned, among others, was refusal of judgment n. o. v.
Judgment affirmed.
Roger B. Johnson, with him Myron W. Jones, for appellant.
Joseph H. Broscoe, for appellee.
Before Keller, P. J., Cunningham, Baldrige, Stadtfeld, Rhodes, Hirt and Kenworthey, JJ.
Louis Davis, doing business as Sharon Auto Finance Company, was owner of a certain auto which was leased to John Adamchick under bailment lease of usual form. On Saturday, October 25, 1937, the car was wrecked in an accident while in possession of Adamchick. After the car was wrecked, Adamchick contacted plaintiff, the owner, on the Monday following and told him he had no more money and could pay nothing further on the car, and that he had delivered the car to Grimaldi's Garage in Farrell; plaintiff came to Grimaldi's Garage and viewed the car. A short time afterwards, a representative of the insurance company in which plaintiff had insured his interest in the car, came to the garage and had an estimate made of the cost of the repairs; subsequently, repairs were started. The amount of the estimated cost of the repairs, less $ 50 deductible, was paid by the insurance company to plaintiff.
The car was removed from Grimaldi's Garage to the Penn Auto Body Company, a company which specializes in the type of repairs required. While the repairs were being done at this latter place, and before the same were completed, plaintiff was again advised as to the location of the car and the progress of the work. In fact, the plaintiff personally called the Penn Auto Body Company to inquire about the progress of the repairs and was advised that some additional parts were required before the same could be completed.
After the car was completely repaired and ready for delivery, the plaintiff advised the Penn Auto Body Company that he had no place to store the same for a few days, but did not deny liability for repairs. Subsequently, the plaintiff refused to pay for the same and the defendant, Penn Auto Body Company, held the car as security for its claim. The plaintiff then filed an action of replevin, furnished bond, and took the car into his possession. The plaintiff, therefore, received the car fully repaired and also the amount of the estimated costs of repairs from the insurance company.
A point ex parte plaintiff for binding instructions, was refused. The case was submitted to the jury in a fair and comprehensive charge to which no exception was taken. The jury found the right of possession in plaintiff on the condition that he pay to Penn Auto Body Company, of defendants, the repair bill of $ 246.90. A motion for judgment non obstante veredicto in favor of plaintiff was overruled and judgment entered in accordance with the verdict. This appeal by plaintiff followed.
Upon a motion for judgment n. o. v., the testimony must be read in the light most favorable to the party who has the verdict and he must be given the benefit of every inference that can be reasonably drawn from the facts established. If there is any evidence at all to sustain the inference drawn by the jury, the court may not substitute its inference for the jury's verdict, notwithstanding that the trial judge sitting as a juror would have found the facts contrary to the conclusion of the jury: Kish v. Penna. R. R., 309 Pa. 439, 164 A. 341; Stevenson et al. v. Sarfert, 310 Pa. 458, 165 A. 225; Mitchell et al.,...
To continue reading
Request your trial