Legal Opinion · Dissent

Chalupiak v. Stahlman

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided June 27, 1951No. Appeal, 74Published

1Dissent

Dissenting Opinion by

Mr. Justice Bell:

I very strongly dissent from the majority opinion’s summation of the facts and its conclusions of law. I cannot find nor could the Chancellor who saw and heard the witnesses, nor the court en banc, any fraud, actual or legal, and certainly no confidential relationship. It is by now hornbook law that “findings of fact by a Chancellor who saw and heard the witnesses, especially when approved by the court en banc, have the force and effect of a verdict of a jury and will not be disturbed on appeal, if supported by adequate evidence”': Roth v. Hartl, 365 Pa.…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Roth v. HartlSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1950
  2. Barrett v. HeinerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1951
  3. Christy v. ChristySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1946
  4. Chorpenning's AppealSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1858
  5. Bruner v. FinleySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1898

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API