Case ID: pa-super_85/html/0003-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Linn, J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

G. A. S. Motor Co., Inc., v. Jacob Lakoff, Appellant.
    
      Automobiles — Sales of — Payments on account — Evidence—Sufficiency.
    
    In an action of assumpsit on a written contract for the sale of an automobile, where the issue is one of fact as to the amount paid, the finding in favor of the plaintiff will be sustained where there is sufficient evidence to support it.
    The failure of the use-plaintiff to prove the formal assignment of a contract is not a bar to a recovery.
    Argued November 12, 1924.
    Appeal, No. 197, Oct. T., 1924, by defendant, from judgment of Municipal Court of Philadelphia, Dec. T., 1923, No. 1155, in favor of plaintiff in case of G. A. S. Motor Co., Inc., v. Jacob Lakoff.
    Before Orlady, P. J., Porter, Henderson, Trexler, Keller and Gawthrop, JJ.
    Affirmed. ,
    
      February 27, 1925:
    Assumpsit on written contract for sale of automobile. Before Cassidy, J., without a jury.
    The facts are stated in the opinion of the Superior Court.
    The court entered judgment in favor of the plaintiff in the sum of $240. Defendant appealed.
    
      Errors assigned were, among others, refusal of defendant’s motion for judgment non obstante veredicto and refusal to grant a new trial.
    
      Oscar Rosenbaum, for appellant.
    
      Joseph H. Lieberman, for appellee.
   Opinion by

Linn, J.,

This suit grew out of the purchase of an automobile in October for delivery in December, on installment payments; defendant declined then to take the car and demanded back what he had paid. Some months later plaintiff sold the car and brought this suit for the difference between what defendant had agreed to pay and the amount received at that sale. Defendant counterclaimed for what he had paid on account. Jury trial was waived. The contract was in writing. The parties testified in contradiction of each other as to what was said and done when the delivery date arrived, and as to^ the market price of such cars when plaintiff sold it. From that dispute, the court found the facts in accord with plaintiff’s contention. As there was evidence to support the finding, we inquire no further. Most of the assignments of error complain of that phase of the case,, and are accordingly dismissed. The point to which appellant’s argument is principally directed is, that no recovery can be had because the use-plaintiff, Alperdt, failed to prove the formal assignment of the contract to him; it is without merit: Blue Star Navigation Co. to use v. Coal Mining Co., 276 Pa. 352, 358; Grubnau et al. v. Bank, 279 Pa. 501, 507.

Nothing else needs notice.

Judgment affirmed.