Ott v. Sweatman

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Ott v. Sweatman

31 A. 102, 166 Pa. 217, 1895 Pa. LEXIS 1181

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided January 21, 1895·No. Appeal, No. 6·Published·Cited by 36 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam,

The learned trial judge rightly held that the agreements, between Leiling and Ott constituted a conditional sale and pot a bailment; and hence there was no error in directing a verdict in favor of the defendant in the issue. All that can be profitably said on the controlling question in the case will be found in the able and exhaustive opinion of the court below' on the rule for a new trial. On it we affirm the judgment.

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

Per Curiam,

The learned trial judge rightly held that the agreements, between Leiling and Ott constituted a conditional sale and pot a bailment; and hence there was no error in directing a verdict in favor of the defendant in the issue. All that can be profitably said on the controlling question in the case will be found in the able and exhaustive opinion of the court below' on the rule for a new trial. On it we affirm the judgment.

Ott v. Sweatman, 31 A. 102, 166 Pa. 217, 1895 Pa. LEXIS 1181 (Pa. 1895).

Pincite

31 A. 102 (Ott v. Sweatman) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related