G.A.S. Motor Co., Inc. v. Lakoff

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

G.A.S. Motor Co., Inc. v. Lakoff

85 Pa. Super. 3, 1925 Pa. Super. LEXIS 194

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedNovember 12, 1924

DocketAppeal, 197

StatusPublished

This text of 85 Pa. Super. 3 (G.A.S. Motor Co., Inc. v. Lakoff) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

G.A.S. Motor Co., Inc. v. Lakoff, 85 Pa. Super. 3, 1925 Pa. Super. LEXIS 194 (Pa. Ct. App. 1924).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Linn, J.,

This suit grew out of the purchase of an automobile in October for delivery in December, on installment payments; defendant declined then to take the car and demanded back what he had paid. Some months later plaintiff sold the car and brought this suit for the difference between what defendant had agreed to pay and the amount received at that sale. Defendant counterclaimed for what he had paid on account. Jury trial was waived. The contract was in writing. The parties testified in contradiction of each other as to what was said and done when the delivery date arrived, and as to^ the market price of such cars when plaintiff sold it. From that dispute, the court found the facts in accord with plaintiff’s contention. As there was evidence to support the finding, we inquire no further. Most of the assignments of error complain of that phase of the case,, and are accordingly dismissed. The point to which appellant’s argument is principally directed is, that no recovery can be had because the use-plaintiff, Alperdt, failed to prove the formal assignment of the contract to him; it is without merit: Blue Star Navigation Co. to use v. Coal *5 Mining Co., 276 Pa. 352, 358; Grubnau et al. v. Bank, 279 Pa. 501, 507.

Nothing else needs notice.

Judgment affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Opinion by

Linn, J.,

This suit grew out of the purchase of an automobile in October for delivery in December, on installment payments; defendant declined then to take the car and demanded back what he had paid. Some months later plaintiff sold the car and brought this suit for the difference between what defendant had agreed to pay and the amount received at that sale. Defendant counterclaimed for what he had paid on account. Jury trial was waived. The contract was in writing. The parties testified in contradiction of each other as to what was said and done when the delivery date arrived, and as to^ the market price of such cars when plaintiff sold it. From that dispute, the court found the facts in accord with plaintiff’s contention. As there was evidence to support the finding, we inquire no further. Most of the assignments of error complain of that phase of the case,, and are accordingly dismissed. The point to which appellant’s argument is principally directed is, that no recovery can be had because the use-plaintiff, Alperdt, failed to prove the formal assignment of the contract to him; it is without merit: Blue Star Navigation Co. to use v. Coal *5 Mining Co., 276 Pa. 352, 358; Grubnau et al. v. Bank, 279 Pa. 501, 507.

Nothing else needs notice.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

85 Pa. Super. 3, 1925 Pa. Super. LEXIS 194, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gas-motor-co-inc-v-lakoff-pasuperct-1924.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack