Opinion
April 30, 1930.
May 2, 1930.
Bailment — Storage of auto — Notice of sale — Case for jury.
In an action of assumpsit to recover storage charges for the defendant's automobile, the case was for the jury and verdict for the plaintiff will be sustained where the issue was one of fact as to whether the defendant had given the plaintiff notice of the sale of the car, so as to relieve him from liability for subsequent storage charges.
Appeal No. 119, April., 1930, by defendant from order of C.P., Allegheny County, October T., 1929, No. 354, in the case of John A. Loper v. Charles H. Gensler.
Before TREXLER, P.J., KELLER, LINN, GAWTHROP, CUNNINGHAM, BALDRIGE and GRAFF, JJ. Affirmed.
Assumpsit to recover storage charges.
Petition for leave to appeal to court of common pleas of Allegheny County. Before MARSHAL, J.
The facts are stated in the following opinion of the court below.
Defendant has petitioned for leave to appeal from a judgment of the county court entered on a verdict against him, alleging that such verdict is against the evidence, the weight of the evidence and the law. We have read the entire transcript of testimony, as well as the charge of the Court, and are satisfied that the verdict was warranted by the evidence.
Plantiff sued to recover his charges for storing defendant's automobile. Defendant contended that some while after placing the automobile in storage, he sold the car to one, green, and so notified plaintiff. Plaintiff denied having received such notice. The distinct issue on which the case was submitted to the jury was whether notice of the same had been given to plaintiff, so as to relieve defendant of liability for subsequent storage charges. This was purely a question of fact which the jury might have determined either way. It found the fact adversely to defendant, and the verdict must stand.
The trial judge in his charge made reference to the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act, as to registration of transfers of title to automobiles, but we are unable to see that such reference harmed defendant in any way, since the only issue presented to the jury was whether defendant had given plaintiff personal notice of the alleged sale to Green.
The court discharged the defendant's rule. Defendant appealed.
Error assigned, was the order of Court.
Horace J. Miller, for appellant.
Albert C. Hirsch, and with him Watson Freeman, for appellee.
Argued April 30, 1930.
The judgment is affirmed on the opinion of the court below.