Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Freeman, Etc. v. Rogal

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided October 3, 1944No. Appeal, 195Published

1Concurrence

CONCURRING OPINION BY

Mr. CHIEF JUSTICE MAXEY:

I concur in the result reached in the court’s opinion filed in the above entitled case.

In Bell, Secretary of Banking, v. Cabalik, 346 Pa. 115, the affidavit of defense set up as “new matter” “that the Receiver failed to make an assessment and demand for payment against the stockholders until February 1, 1939; that the Receiver had no sufficient reason for said delay; that demand for payment should have been made within a reasonable time after said Receiver knew that the assets were insufficient to pay its creditors in full, or at most within the…

2Cases cited22 opinions

  1. Kennedy v. GibsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1869
  2. Davis v. MillsSupreme Court of the United States · 1904
  3. Broderick v. RosnerSupreme Court of the United States · 1935
  4. Whitman v. Oxford National BankSupreme Court of the United States · 1900
  5. Marshall v. . ShermanNew York Court of Appeals · 1895

17 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