Legal Opinion

Zettlemoyer Et Ux. v. Bloch

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided January 24, 1938No. Appeal, 52PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Schaffer,

One cannot read this record without becoming convinced that Lucien Bloch practiced chicanery upon plaintiffs. Whether under established principles they can correct the wrong he did them is the problem to be solved. The bill in equity brought by plaintiffs seeks to have reassigned to them by Joseph Bloch and Son, a partnership of which Lucien Bloch is a member, a bond and mortgage executed by Samuel W. Reinhard and wife to plaintiffs, which the latter had transferred to Bloch and Son, and to compel them to cancel a bond and mortgage which had been given by…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Williams v. KerrSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1893
  2. Sutton v. MorganSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1893
  3. Standard Interlock Elevator Co. v. WilsonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1907
  4. Isaac, Assignee v. Davis Et Ux.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1937

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. LaCourse v. KieselSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1951
  2. Rose v. RoseSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1956
  3. United States v. GillDistrict Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 1957
  4. City of Philadelphia v. One Reading Center AssociatesDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2001
  5. Brown v. Buckner, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County1949

1 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