Flum v. Lichtenfeld

GAWTHROP, III, J.,

This comes before us upon the petition of A. Theodore Flum (Flum) to perpetuate testimony under 20 Pa.C.S. §775. A citation to show cause why the petition should not be granted was issued, hearing was held, and the testimony of Flum and respondent Samuel Lichtenfeld1 (Lichtenfeld) was recorded. Counsel for Flum has moved the court to issue a final decree in this matter. The sole issue is whether this court should order that all the testimony and exhibits in this proceeding be perpetuated. Having considered the pleadings, arguments and briefs of counsel, we render this…