Third Reformed Dutch Church v. Jones
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 77, July T., 1892, by defendant, Daniel S. Jones, from judgment of C. P. No. 1, Pbila. Co., June T., 1888, No. 872, on verdict for plaintiff. Assumpsit for moneys and securities in the hands of defendant belonging to the Third Reformed Dutch Church of Philadelphia.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 77, July T., 1892, by defendant, Daniel S. Jones, from judgment of C. P. No. 1, Pbila. Co., June T., 1888, No. 872, on verdict for plaintiff. Assumpsit for moneys and securities in the hands of defendant belonging to the Third Reformed Dutch Church of Philadelphia. At the trial, defendant did not deny that he held moneys and securities belonging to the Third Reformed Dutch Church, but claimed that plaintiff was not the Third Reformed Dutch Church which owned the moneys and securities. Defendant offered to prove that Robert B. Davidson was the president of the board of trustees of…
1Opinion of the Court
Per, Curiam,
We see no such error in this case as to justify us in reversing the judgment. The controversy has been going on for many years and it is quite time it was settled. The defendant does not deny that he has the moneys and securities in his hands belonging to the Third Reformed Dutch Church which are the subject of this controversy. His anxiety appears to be that the money shall not go to the wrong body. We think he need have no fear upon that head. The plaintiff is the Third Reformed Dutch Church, and if, as he alleges, it is not the true one, the court below has ample power to…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Ulrich v. GetzSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1899