Kolaskie v. Dressner

Citations

• 75 Pa. Super. 180
• 1920 Pa. Super. LEXIS 243

Syllabus

<p>Sales — Automobiles—Title—Purchase by third party — Written evidence — Parol contradiction — Estoppel.</p> <p>In an action for trespass for the conversion of an automobile the plaintiff testified that he consigned the car to a bailee to be sold by him for the benefit of the plaintiff. The car was after-wards found in the possession of the defendant who claimed he had bought it from the bailee, but who had never had any dealings with the plaintiff. It was further averred that the defendant had full knowledge of a fraud perpetrated on the plaintiff by the bailee and that therefore he could be sued directly for the fraudulent appropriation and conversion of the property of the plaintiff. In addition to this testimony the plaintiff offered several instruments in writing' among them a bill of sale for the machine reciting the payment of a certain amount in cash and a promissory note for the unpaid balance, which flatly contradicted the oral testimony of the plaintiff and destroyed the entire theory on which his case rested. Under such circumstanices there was not sufficient evidence to overcome the written instruments offered in evidence by the plaintiff and a verdict for the defendant was properly directed.</p>