
    Gomery-Schwartz Motor Car Co., Inc., Appellant, v. Thomas A. Tucker and American Brewing Company, a Corporation.
    
      Bailment lease — Replevin—Intervening claimant — Gase for jury.
    
    In an action of replevin to recover possession of an automobile alleged to have been delivered to defendant on a bailment lease, the case was for the jury where a company, of which defendant was president, claimed that the car had been purchased by it and paid for, and that the defendant had subsequently signed the lease in his own name without authority.
    Under such circumstances the case was for the jury. If the intervening company bought the car and gave a valuable consideration for it, the transaction was closed and the title passed to it. If, subsequently, the defendant in the replevin proceeding signed a lease, such act would not reinvest title in the original vendor without redelivery of the machine to it.
    Argued October 22, 1924.
    Appeal, No. 147, Oct. T., 1924, by defendant, from judgment of O. P. No. 1, Phila. Co., March T., 1923, No. 683, on verdict for defendant in the case of Gomery-Schwartz Motor Car Co., Inc., v. Thomas A. Tucker and American Brewing Company.
    Before Orlad y, P. J., Porter, Henderson, Trexler, Keller, Linn and Gawthrop, JJ.
    Affirmed.
    
      Replevin to recover possession of automobile. Before Bartlett, J.
    Tbe 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.
    
      Error assigned was refusal of plaintiff’s motion for judgment non obstante veredicto.
    
      C. Brewster Rhoads, of Roberts & Montgomery, for appellant.
    The transaction between the parties constituted a bailment lease and, because of defendant’s refusal to pay the rent reserved therein, the plaintiff became vested with the right of immediate possession of the automobile: Michael v. Stuber, 73 Pa. Superior Ct. 390; Flegal v. Hoover et ah, 156 Pa. 276; Dreifus, Block & Co. v. Salvago Co., 194 Pa. 475; McNish v. Reynolds, Lamberton & Co., 95 Pa. 483; Stiles v. Seaton, 200 Pa. 114; Goss Printing Co. v. Jordan, 171 Pa. 474; National Cash Register Co. v. Shurber, 41 Pa. Superior Ct. 187.
    
      Grover C. Ladner, of Ladner & Ladner, for appellee.
    February 27, 1925:
   Opinion by

Trexler, J.,

This is an action of replevin instituted by the plaintiff, the Gomery-Schwartz Motor Car Company, Inc., to recover possession of an automobile alleged to have been delivered to Thomas A. Tucker on January 2, 1923, under a bailment lease bearing the same date. There was $1,000 paid on account, a Dodge car taken in exchange and a rental of $402 reserved in said lease and a judgment note given for said amount. The note became due and the defendant refusing to pay, this action was brought to recover possession of the machine. The American Brewing Company intervened. The defendants’ story is that through Tucker, as president, the American Brewing Company bought the car; that it was paid for in part by a check of $1,000 of the American Brewing Company; that an ordinary promissory note for $400 was given by the American Brewing Company and a Dodge car was turned over to the plaintiff; that it was a week or ten days later when an agent of the plaintiff called on Tucker and said that it was customary for them when a note was given to have a lease signed and Tucker states he signed, in his own proper name, the lease and a judgment note as a mere matter of form. These two counter narratives would seem to require submission to the jury. If it be true that the American Brewing Company bought the car and gave a promissory note and a Dodge car in exchange and received possession of the car, the transaction was closed and title passed to the American Brewing Company. If subsequently Tucker without authority signed a lease, that act would not reinvest title in the original vendor without a redelivery of the machine to them. This question, upon which the case hinged, was properly submitted to the jury. The only assignment of error is to the refusal of the court to enter judgment in favor of the plaintiff n. o. v. We think the case was one for the jury and the verdict settles the matter.

The assignment of error is overruled and the judgment is affirmed.  