Appeal, No. 187, Oct. T., 1961, from judgment of Court of Common Pleas No. 2 of Philadelphia County, March T., 1955, No. 7200, in case of Taylor Motor Rental, Inc. v. Associates Discount Corporation, Inc. Judgment affirmed.
William C. Thompson, with him James J. Daly, for appellant.
John J. Brennan, with him Richard D. Rivers, and Barnes, Dechert, Price, Myers & Rhoads, for appellee.
Before Ervin, Wright, Woodside, Watkins, Montgomery, and Flood, JJ. (rhodes, P.j., absent).
[ 196 Pa. Super. Page 183]
This is an appeal from the judgment of the court of common pleas entered for the defendant in an action of replevin. The case was tried before Judge DOTY of the Court of Common Pleas No. 2 of Philadelphia. The following extracts from the opinion which he wrote on overruling the plaintiff's exceptions to the court's findings and conclusions set forth the procedure, the facts and the reasons for the judgment:
"An action of replevin with bond was instituted by the plaintiff for recovery of a 1955 Studebaker automobile and the Sheriff delivered possession of that automobile
[ 196 Pa. Super. Page 184]
to the plaintiff. The defendant did not file a counter bond and the plaintiff still retains possession of the vehicle.
"At the conclusion of the testimony, the court sitting without a jury found against the plaintiff on its complaint and in favor of the defendant in the amount of $3,000 plus interest, which was the value of the car as attested to by plaintiff's affidavit of value filed at the inception of this case.
"In its complaint the plaintiff alleges that it had purchased the automobile in question from McCurry Motors, Inc., (hereinafter referred to as 'McCurry'), and that unlawfully and without right the defendant seized and took possession of the automobile some months later. In its answer and new matter, the defendant admitted that it had seized the automobile from the plaintiff but denied that it had done so unlawfully and without right. On the contrary, the defendant alleged that it had financed the acquisition of the automobile by McCurry and that it had entered into a security agreement which reserved title to and secured interest in the automobile. The defendant further averred that it had perfected its security interest by filing a financing statement both with the Secretary of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the Prothonotary of Philadelphia County.
"Under the terms of the security agreement, McCurry had possession of the automobile only for the purpose of resale in the ...