General Motors Truck Co. v. Runkel
| Decision Date | 24 February 1932 |
| Docket Number | 14,225 |
| Citation | 179 N.E. 789,95 Ind.App. 15 |
| Parties | GENERAL MOTORS TRUCK COMPANY v. RUNKEL |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Rehearing denied July 28, 1932.
From Allen Superior Court; Charles J. Ryan, Judge.
Action in replevin by the General Motors Truck Company against Grover C. Runkel, in which the defendant filed a cross-complaint for damages. From a judgment for plaintiff on its complaint and for defendant on his cross-complaint plaintiff appealed.
Affirmed.
Creighton H. Williams, for appellant.
Smith & Parrish, for appellee.
This action was brought by the appellant, General Motors Truck Company, against the appellee, Grover C. Runkel, by a complaint in replevin, in the usual form, to recover the possession of a one and a half ton General Motors Company motor truck of which the defendant, according to the complaint, had possession unlawfully and without right and of which the plaintiff was the owner and to the immediate possession of which it was entitled.
An answer in general denial closed the issues in this action in replevin.
Defendant appellee here, filed a cross-complaint, asking for damages for alleged fraud in the making of the contract for purchase of the truck. Demurrer for lack of facts was then filed to each paragraph of cross-complaint; which demurrer was overruled. Appellant filed answer in general denial to each paragraph of cross-complaint.
Upon these different issues, the cause was submitted to a jury for trial. The jury brought in two separate verdicts, in one finding for the appellant that it was the owner and entitled to the possession of the motor truck, that appellee, defendant, unlawfully detained the same, and assessing appellant's damages at one cent. The other verdict found for appellee on his first paragraph of cross-complaint and assessed his damages at $ 746.33, of which amount the appellee offered to remit the sum of $ 55.13 claimed by appellee as the amount of interest awarded appellee in said verdict.
The court rendered judgment accordingly, and the errors relied upon for reversal are: The court erred in overruling the demurrer of this appellant to the first paragraph of appellee's cross-complaint, and that the court erred in overruling appellant's motion for a new trial.
The appellant based its right to possession upon a certain conditional-sales contract, by the terms of which title remained in the appellant until the truck was paid for.
The cross-complaint alleges that the appellee was induced to sign the contract in question by means of fraudulent representations, on the part of the appellant, upon which appellee relied, and was thereby induced to enter into said contract the facts constituting the fraud alleged in the cross-complaint.
The cross-complaint alleges the purchase price of the
truck to be $ 2,185.33; that appellee delivered to appellant
on said contract an old truck of the value of
cash
325.35
and one payment
108.55
Total
$ 667.75
That the truck he received was only worth
We thus have a case stated where the appellee retains possession of a truck which he claims to be worth $ 1,200.00 and has not offered to return the same to the appellant, and has defaulted in the payment of a certain monthly installment of $ 108.00, and asks for and is given a judgment for fraud against the appellant in the sum of $ 691.20, at the same time the appellant is given judgment for possession of the truck because of the default of the appellee in not paying the $ 108.00 installment on said truck.
Both parties rely upon the case of Peoples State Bank v Hall (1925), 83 Ind.App. 385, 148 N.E. 486, which was a case where a truck had been sold for $ 3,000.00, where the proof showed it to be worth only $ 1,000.00, that the purchaser had paid $ 1,100.00 on the contract before he discovered the fraud. The purchaser in that case, as in the case at bar, elected to keep...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gen. Motors Truck Co. v. Runkel
...95 Ind.App. 15179 N.E. 789GENERAL MOTORS TRUCK CO.v.RUNKEL.No. 14225.Appellate Court of Indiana, in Banc.Feb. 24, 1932 ... Appeal from Superior Court, Allen County; Charles J. Ryan, Judge.Replevin action by the General Motors Truck Company against Grover C. Runkel, in which defendant cross-complained. From a judgment on a verdict for plaintiff on his complaint and for defendant on his cross-complaint, plaintiff appeals.Affirmed.Creighton H. Williams, of Ft. Wayne, for appellant.Smith & Parrish, of Ft. Wayne, for ... ...
- Houghland v. Columbia Construction Co.