C. H. Hardy Auto Co. v. Posey

Citations

• 50 Pa. Super. 399
• 1912 Pa. Super. LEXIS 63

Syllabus

<p>Replevin — Bailment—Lease of automobile — Parties—Confusion of names.</p> <p>1. In an action of replevin by the “C. H. Hardy Auto Company” to the use of “Harry Thomas,” to recover an automobile leased under an agreement in wilting by the auto company to the defendant, where it appears that there was indorsed on the agreement an assignment by “C. H. Hardy” to Thomas, and the statement of claim avers that the auto company had assigned its interest to Thomas, and this averment is not denied in the affidavit of defense, no question can be raised by the defendant as to a confusion of names of the legal plaintiff, and it is immaterial whether the auto company was a corporation, a trading name, or an individual.</p> <p>2. A person for whose use a suit is brought need not show a right in himself; all that is necessary is to show in the legal plaintiff a right to recover.</p> <p>3. In an action of replevin to recover an automobile leased by the legal plaintiff to the defendant, proof of conversations in regard to the condition of the machine prior to the execution of the lease are inadmissible, if the purpose of the offer is to lay ground for a set-off. In Pennsylvania set-off cannot be pleaded nor allowed in an action of replevin.</p>