Bernstein v. Hineman (1925)
Citation: 86 Pa. Super. 198 (1925). Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania. Full judicial opinion retrieved October 17, 2026. The Caselaw Access Project file is an unofficial complete reporter reproduction.
Source note (2026-10-18):
- Links on this page to
https://static.case.law/pa-super/86/cases/0198-01.jsonare an (unofficial Caselaw Access Project copy, retrieved before 2026-10-18; host disallows automated access); no official or otherwise permitted full-text copy was located on 2026-10-18.
A garage repaired a truck, purported to sell it to recover the bill without the required statutory advertisement, and later bought it back after an intervening transfer. It then refused to release the truck without payment of its former lien. The Superior Court affirmed conversion liability: the unqualified ownership sale abused the bailment, surrendered possession and discharged that lien. Reacquisition did not revive it. An assignment of the debt and accompanying lien would have been a different transaction, but that was not the sale attempted here.
The opinion applies the December 14, 1863 act published in the 1864 laws, not a modern holding on the constitutional validity of the 1925 Act 300 procedure. The currently posted 1863/1864 act and Act 300 were separately retrieved. Their procedures must not be conflated with the historical transaction or generalized into clean purchaser title.
parks-v-mr-ford-pa-1977 later cites Bernstein when distinguishing loss of possession under a court order from voluntary surrender. Comprehensive subsequent treatment and application to a modern good-faith third-party purchaser or senior secured lender remain needs_verification. The actual conversion remedy and the opinion’s July 9, 1925 decision date are text-verified.
Applies in pennsylvania.
Legal information, not legal advice. Verify current law and later treatment before relying on this decision.