Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

READY v. MOTOR SPORT (09/12/63)

September 12, 1963

READY
v.
MOTOR SPORT, INC., APPELLANT.



Appeal, No. 150, Oct. T., 1963, from judgment of Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County, June T., 1962, No. 1062, in case of John F. Ready v. Motor Sport, Inc. Judgment affirmed.

COUNSEL

George J. McConchie, with him Cramp and D'Iorio, for appellant.

D. Barry Gibbons, with him Reed & Gibbons, for appellee.

Before Rhodes, P.j; Ervin, Wright, Woodside, Watkins, Montgomery, and Flood, JJ.

Author: Ervin

[ 201 Pa. Super. Page 529]

OPINION BY ERVIN, J.

This is an action in assumpsit brought by the plaintiff to recover damages resulting from the breach of a bailment contract.

[ 201 Pa. Super. Page 530]

The subject matter of the suit is plaintiff's Triumph automobile, which was stolen while in the custody of the defendant. The plaintiff purchased the automobile from the defendant on April 29, 1961 for a price of $3,111.50, paying in cash $2,961.50, leaving a balance due of $150.00 pending installation by defendant of a convertible hardtop. The automobile was delivered to the defendant for installation of the top on December 12, 1961 and was not returned to the plaintiff. The plaintiff proved delivery of the automobile to the defendant and the defendant's failure to return it upon demand. The defendant then produced evidence to show that the automobile was stolen while on its service lot adjacent to the garage. The plaintiff then produced evidence to show that the defendant was negligent in its care of the automobile.

The plaintiff produced an expert who testified that the value of the car at the time of the loss was $2,500.00, and the defendant produced an expert who testified that the value of the automobile was $1,995.00 to $2,000.00. The jury rendered a verdict for the plaintiff in the sum of $2,961.50, which was the exact amount the plaintiff had paid in cash for the automobile.

The defendant filed a motion for a new trial and the court below denied the motion upon appellee's filing a remittitur for that part of the verdict in excess of $2,610.00 within five days. The remittitur was duly filed and judgment entered on the verdict as so reduced. The $2,610.00 figure was made up as follows: Value of the car, $2,500.00; four per cent sales tax, $100.00; notary fees, transfer charges, etc., $10.00.

Counsel for the defendant-appellant argues that it was fundamental error for the court to fail to charge on the question of damages. At the conclusion of the charge the court asked counsel for any additions or corrections. Counsel for the ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.