Legal Opinion · Dissent

Pearlman Trust

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided November 26, 1943No. Appeal, 237Published

1Dissent

Dissenting Opinion by

Me. Justice Horace Stern:

I dissent in this case from what I deem to be an erroneous decision.

There are, in my opinion, three fundamental principles which govern the situation here presented. The first is that, in the absence of some contractual obligation, a cestui que trust does not forfeit his interest in the trust res by failing to loan money to the trustee, even though the purpose of the loan be to preserve the trust property and even though others of the cestuis que trustent may choose to make such a loan. The second is that, while a fiduciary has the power to…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Fried v. FisherSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1937
  2. Antone v. New Amsterdam Casualty Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1939
  3. Commonwealth v. MoltzSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1849
  4. Reynolds v. CridgeSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1890
  5. Provident Life & Trust Co. v. Fidelity InsuranceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1902

5 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