Southern Finance Co. v. Vermont Garage, Inc.

D.C. Circuit

Southern Finance Co. v. Vermont Garage, Inc.

146 F.2d 670, 79 U.S. App. D.C. 324

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedJanuary 22, 1945

DocketNo. 8753

StatusPublished

This text of 146 F.2d 670 (Southern Finance Co. v. Vermont Garage, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Southern Finance Co. v. Vermont Garage, Inc., 146 F.2d 670, 79 U.S. App. D.C. 324 (D.C. Cir. 1945).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In a replevin suit for automobiles, brought by appellant Finance Company against appellee Garage, the Garage counterclaimed for storage charges. In partial defense to this counterclaim the Finance Company contended, and introduced evidence to show, that to the extent of $236 it consisted of charges which the Garage had failed to collect from the owners of “repossessed” cars as its contract with the Finance Company required. The court ruled that the Finance Company was not entitled to go to the jury on this defense because the President of the Company had given testimony which was inconsistent with it. We think this was error. Alamo v. Del Rosario, 69 App.D.C. 47, 98 F.2d 328. The judgment must therefore be reversed and the case remanded for a new trial unless appellee, the Garage, consents within ten days to a corresponding reduction in the amount of the judgment which it recovered on its counterclaim.

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

PER CURIAM.

In a replevin suit for automobiles, brought by appellant Finance Company against appellee Garage, the Garage counterclaimed for storage charges. In partial defense to this counterclaim the Finance Company contended, and introduced evidence to show, that to the extent of $236 it consisted of charges which the Garage had failed to collect from the owners of “repossessed” cars as its contract with the Finance Company required. The court ruled that the Finance Company was not entitled to go to the jury on this defense because the President of the Company had given testimony which was inconsistent with it. We think this was error. Alamo v. Del Rosario, 69 App.D.C. 47, 98 F.2d 328. The judgment must therefore be reversed and the case remanded for a new trial unless appellee, the Garage, consents within ten days to a corresponding reduction in the amount of the judgment which it recovered on its counterclaim.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

146 F.2d 670, 79 U.S. App. D.C. 324, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/southern-finance-co-v-vermont-garage-inc-cadc-1945.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack