Menovsky v. Menovsky
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 43, Jan. T., 1902, by-defendants, from judgment of C. P. Luzerne Co., Oct. T., 1900, No. 397, on -verdict for plaintiff, in case of Joseph Menovsky v. Mary Menovsky et al. Feigned issue to determine the ownership of a fund paid into court. Before Ferris, J. The jury returned a verdict for plaintiff for $450 subject to a question of law reserved.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 43, Jan. T., 1902, by-defendants, from judgment of C. P. Luzerne Co., Oct. T., 1900, No. 397, on -verdict for plaintiff, in case of Joseph Menovsky v. Mary Menovsky et al. Feigned issue to determine the ownership of a fund paid into court. Before Ferris, J. The jury returned a verdict for plaintiff for $450 subject to a question of law reserved. On a motion for judgment non obstante veredicto, Ferris, J., filed the following opinion: The trial in the case now before us was upon a feigned issue to determine the ownership of the sum of $600 paid into court by the National Slavonic…
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam,
The able arguments of the defendant’s counsel have failed to convince us that the court erred in the instructions given to the jury or in entering judgment on the verdict. Our conclusions are, that the designation of a brother as beneficiary is not prohibited by the act of 1893; that neither the constitution nor the by-laws of the association contains prohibitory restrictive language clearly excluding from the powers of the corporation the right to contract with the member for the payment of benefits to the beneficiary named in this case; and that such contract cannot be held void…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Compton's EstateSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1904
- Neff v. HaggertySuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1930