Kelly Springfield Road Roller Company v. Spyker
Decision Date | 14 May 1906 |
Docket Number | 76 |
Citation | 64 A. 546,215 Pa. 332 |
Parties | Kelly Springfield Road Roller Company, Appellant, v. Spyker |
Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Argued April 17, 1906
Appeal, No. 76, Jan. T., 1906, by plaintiff, from judgment of C.P. Huntingdon Co., Dec. T., 1905, No. 49, for plaintiff on feigned issue in case of Kelly Springfield Road Roller Co. v S. I. Spyker. Affirmed.
Feigned issue to determine title to a steam road roller. Before WOODS, P.J.
The opinion of the Supreme Court states the case.
Verdict and judgment for defendant. Plaintiff appealed.
Error assigned amongst others was in refusing binding instructions for plaintiff.
The judgment is affirmed.
H. H Waite, with him C. C. Brewster, for appellant.
Samuel I. Spyker, with him C. H. Whittaker, for appellee.
Before FELL, BROWN, POTTER, ELKIN and STEWART, JJ.
:
This was a feigned issue to determine the title to a steam road roller delivered to the defendants in the execution under the following offer, signed by the plaintiff's general sales agent: The offer was accepted. "We accept above proposition and agree to deliver you said roller in case we fail to make monthly payments." The following supplemental agreement was made:
There is nothing about this agreement that suggests a bailment except the use of the word "lease" in the first line, and of the word "rental" in the supplement. But these words were evidently used to give another name to what was meant to be a conditional sale. The agreement has none of the indications of a lease. There is no term mentioned, and there is no provision for the return of the roller except in case of default in making monthly payments. Although fixing a term and providing for a return at the end thereof may not be...
To continue reading
Request your trial