Ott v. Sweatman
166 Pa. 217 | Pa. | 1895
The learned trial judge rightly held that the agreements, between Leiling and Ott constituted a conditional sale and pot a bailment; and hence there was no error in directing a verdict in favor of the defendant in the issue. All that can be profitably said on the controlling question in the case will be found in the able and exhaustive opinion of the court below' on the rule for a new trial. On it we affirm the judgment.
