Swartz v. Stein

Citations

• 78 Pa. Super. 515
• 1922 Pa. Super. LEXIS 151

Syllabus

<p>Practice, Superior Oourt — Appeals—Assignments of error — Opinion of the court — Extracts—Gharge—Reduction to writing — General exception — Refusal of new trial — Refusal of judgment non obstante veredicto.</p> <p>1. Extracts from an opinion refusing judgment non obstante veredicto may not be assigned for error.</p> <p>2. Where no request has been made, in the court below, that the charge be reduced to writing, and filed of record, assignments of error relating to the charge cannot be considered upon appeal.</p> <p>3. Where there is but a general exception to the charge, only basic and fundamental errors can be considered.</p> <p>4. The refusal of a new trial is ground for reversal when based upon an abuse of judicial discretion, but an assignment of error, relating to such refusal, will be overruled where there is no suggestion of any abuse of discretion.</p> <p>5. An assignment of error, based on refusal to enter judgment non obstante veredicto, must be overruled, where there were disputed questions of fact depending upon oral evidence.</p> <p>Replevin — Questions of fact — Questions for jury — Parties—One not in possession.</p> <p>6. In an action of replevin to recover possession of an automobile where the oral testimony is uncertain and conflicting as to the ownership, or whether the machine had been assigned to the plaintiff, as collateral security, or had been sold to the defendants, the trial court properly refused binding instructions, and motion for judgment non obstante veredicto. The determination of those questions was properly left to the jury.</p> <p>7. Replevin, being not only an action to recover property, but also an action for damages for its taking and detention, one who participated in taking an automobile was properly joined as a party defendant, in an action to recover it, even though he was not in possession when it was replevied, and made no claim to it thereafter.</p>