Guernsey v. Moon

46 Pa. Super. 645, 1911 Pa. Super. LEXIS 328
CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania
DecidedMay 11, 1911
DocketAppeal, No. 20
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 46 Pa. Super. 645 (Guernsey v. Moon) 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
Guernsey v. Moon, 46 Pa. Super. 645, 1911 Pa. Super. LEXIS 328 (Pa. Ct. App. 1911).

Opinion

Opinion by

Oblady, J.,

The defendant signed and sealed a written contract by which he leased from the plaintiff a horse, buggy and harness upon terms and conditions which are clearly set out, and to relieve against future controversy in regard to the transaction, an added stipulation as follows: “I have received a copy of the above agreement and have no understanding verbal or otherwise differing from it,” was signed by the defendant. The contract is one of bailment, and this action of replevin is brought to recover possession of the property on account and by reason of admitted defaults in the payment of the rentals as they are prescribed in the lease. '

The defense set up is an alleged oral agreement contemporaneously entered into by the parties when the contract was signed, and urged as an inducing cause to its execution, by which the manner of payment of the rent as it matured was materially changed.

The oral agreement flatly contradicts the writing, and there is no intimation that there was any fraud practiced on the defendant, or that there was any accident or mistake in the execution of the writing or in omitting from the writing the alleged change of terms.

The defense suggested is in the guise of a set-off, which is not permitted in an action of replevin. This case is ruled by Hall’s Safe Co. v. Walenk, 42 Pa. Superior Ct. 576, and was rightly decided in the court below.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

Related

C.I.T. Corporation v. Grosick
167 A. 440 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1933)
Bentz v. Barclay
144 A. 280 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1928)
Travelers Hotel Co. v. Yorke
11 Pa. D. & C. 370 (Bucks County Court of Common Pleas, 1928)
Lee-Strauss Co. v. Kelly
141 A. 236 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1928)
Fedel v. Miller
1 Pa. D. & C. 705 (Jefferson County Court of Common Pleas, 1922)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
46 Pa. Super. 645, 1911 Pa. Super. LEXIS 328, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/guernsey-v-moon-pasuperct-1911.