Case ID: pa-super_83/html/0029-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Gawthrop, J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Yearsley Company, Appellant, v. Lindsay.
    . Contracts — Conversion—Case for jury.
    
    In an action of trespass for conversion of money belonging to the plaintiff, the case is for the jury and a verdict for the defendant will be sustained, where the issue was one of fact as to the existence of an oral contract, and the jury found in favor of the defendant on sufficient evidence.
    Argued December 11, 1923.
    Appeal, No. 320, Oct. T., 1923, by plaintiffs, from judgment of Municipal Court of Philadelphia, Jan. T., 1923, No. 623, on verdict in favor of defendant, in the case of Thomas Yearsley and William A. Wollerton, copartners, trading as Thomas Yearsley Company, v. Andrew Lindsay.
    Before Orlady, P. J., Porter, Henderson, Trexler, Keller, Linn and Gawthrop, JJ.
    Affirmed.
    Trespass to recover money wrongfully embezzled and converted by defendant. Before Crane, J.
    The facts are stated in the opinion of the Superior Court.
    The jury rendered a verdict in favor of the defendant and judgment was entered thereon. Plaintiff appealed
    
      Errors assigned were various rulings on evidence and refusal of plaintiff’s motion for judgment non obstante veredicto.
    
      James Yearsley, and with him Illoway & Felix, for appellants.
    
      James A. Walker, for appellee.
    February 29, 1924:
   Opinion by

Gawthrop, J.,

Appellants sued appellee in trespass to recover $150, alleging that he had “wrongfully and illegally embezzled and converted” that sum to his use. The basis of the claim, as the statement alleges it, was this: One Connell was the owner of and had for sale, at $200, two tanks. Of this, appellants had knowledge. Later appellee inquired of appellants as to their information about the tanks and stated to them that he had a purchaser who would pay $500 for them, if they were satisfactory. Appellee then agreed with appellants that he would induce the prospective buyer to take the tanks at $500 and if he did so, the profit — $300—would be divided equally between appellants and appellee. Connell sold the tanks, received his asking price — $200—and appellee received the profit — $300—and retained it. The total money consideration was furnished by the purchaser.

No affidavit of defense was filed and the case was tried on its merits. A single question was submitted for the jury’s determination: Had the contract stated by appellants been made? The jury found in the negative. We are bound by that finding as well as appellants. There is no other question in the case.

The judgment is affirmed.