Wilson v. Malenock (1937)
Citation: 128 Pa. Super. 544, 194 A. 508 (1937). 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/128/cases/0544-01.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.
An auto-body repairer refused to release the owner’s repaired car and threatened sale under the 1925 general repair-lien act. The factfinder concluded that the repairer had agreed to look solely to the person responsible for the collision for payment. The appellate court upheld the resulting lien waiver and conversion judgment, with damages measured by the car’s value when redelivery was refused.
The opinion distinguishes an agreement merely fixing compensation from a special payment term inconsistent with retaining a lien. It does not hold that every insurer, indemnitor or other third-party payment arrangement destroys a lien. The controlling facts concerned reliance solely on the other payer.
For pennsylvania forced-sale research, the decision supplies an actual underlying-lien gate: statutory sale notice cannot create an otherwise waived possessory lien. It does not adjudicate every purchaser’s senior-lien exposure or resolve the later constitutional treatment of the summary-sale procedure.
The complete opinion is verified. Comprehensive later treatment and present applications remain needs_verification; retrieval is not a still-good certification.
Legal information, not legal advice. Verify current law and later treatment before relying on this decision.