Michael v. Stuber

Citations

• 73 Pa. Super. 390
• 1920 Pa. Super. LEXIS 26

Syllabus

<p>Replevin — Automobiles—Sale or lease — Fraud — Question for fury.</p> <p>In an action to recover possession of an automobile, under the provisions of a bailment lease, the defense was that the transaction was a sale and not a bailment and that the defendant signed the lease through the misrepresentations of the plaintiff. Under such circumstances the case was for the jury, as to the question of fraud and a verdict for the plaintiff will be sustained.</p> <p>The fact that the original intention of the parties was to make a sale, and that such was the legal effect of their first agreement did not prevent a change, while it was still executory, into a bailment with an alternative of future conversion into a sale, on the compliance of stipulated conditions.</p> <p>Contracts — Sales—Alternative of written instrument — Evidence.</p> <p>Where parties without fraud or mistake have put their engagements in writing, the law declares the writing not only the best but the only evidence of the agreement. While parol evidence is admissible to prove fraud and mistake, it is - insufficient for the purpose unless clear, precise and indubitable. Testimony in contradiction of a written agreement amounts to nothing unless it is sufficient to warrant a chancellor in reforming it.</p> <p>Replevin — Breach of warranty — Evidence.</p> <p>In an action of replevin the issue is confined strictly to the ownership of the article replevied and evidence of a breach of warranty is not admissible.</p>