Legal Opinion
Gritz v. Gritz
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Decided May 12, 1941No. Appeals, 201 and 243PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Chief Justice Schaffer,
The object of this bill in equity is to impress a trust in plaintiff’s favor, upon a fund of $5,000, received by defendant, Rose Gritz, being the proceeds of a life insurance policy on the life of her son, Harry Gritz, who was the husband of plaintiff, Bella Gritz. The Philadelphia Saving Fund Society was brought in as a party defendant on the allegation that it was the depository of the fund. On final hearing, the chancellor entered a decree in plaintiff’s favor and. directed defendants to pay to plaintiff the sum named, with interest and costs.…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Estate of SmithPennsylvania Orphans' Court, Philadelphia County · 1891
- Washington's EstateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1908
- Gritz v. GritzSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1939
- Donithen v. Independent Order of ForestersSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1904
- Koenig v. Curran's Restaurant & Baking Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1935
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Haberland v. HaberlandCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1962
- Pugh v. GainesSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1944
- Gorgas' EstateSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1941
- Karen Haberland, John Haberland, Pat Haberland, Michael Haberland, Gale Haberland, Anna Haberland, Colleen Haberland and Rebecca Haberland, Minors, by Their Guardian Anna M. Haberland v. William F. Haberland, and the Connecticut General Life Insurance Company. Karen Haberland, John Haberland, Pat Haberland, Michael Haberland, Gale Haberland, Anna Haberland, Colleen Haberland and Rebecca Haberland, Minors, by Their Guardian Anna M. Haberland v. William F. Haberland and the Connecticut General Life Insurance CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1962