Janecek v. Schaffer

Citations

• 78 Pa. Super. 456
• 1922 Pa. Super. LEXIS 139

Syllabus

<p>{Replevin — Fraud—Illiterate pojrty to contract — Reliance on statement hy other party — Case for jury.</p> <p>In an action of replevin to recover the possession of a pair of horses it appeared that the defendant had given a bill of sale for the horses npon the fulfilment of the requirements of a bailment lease. It further appeared that after the defendant had executed the bill of sale for the horses, he demanded payment for the expenses incident to replevin proceedings under the lease, and that the plaintiff thereupon executed another lease for the horses which he had just bought, which he averred he thought was a promissory note. The rent not having been paid, the defendant repossessed himself of the horses and the plaintiff brought the action of replevin to recover the horses or the value thereof.</p> <p>The plaintiff was an illiterate person who averred that he signed the lease under the impression that it was a promissory note and had nothing to do with the horses.</p> <p>Under such circumstances, the case was for the jury on the question of fraud and a verdict for the plaintiff will be sustained.</p>