Legal Opinion

De Joseph v. Zambelli

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided March 17, 1958No. Appeal, No. 48PublishedCited by 57 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

Per Curiam,

A Chancellor who saw and heard all the witnesses decreed a rescission of a contract of purchase and a recovery of the purchase price on the ground.of fraud and misrepresentation.

In Howarth v. Miller, 382 Pa. 419, 115 A. 2d 222, the Court, quoting from Peters v. Machikas, 378 Pa. 52, 56, 105 A. 2d 708, said (page 424) : “ ‘Findings of fact [which are genuine findings of fact] made by a Chancellor who saw and heard the witnesses, when' confirmed by the Court en banc, will not be reversed on appeal if they are supported by adequate evidence: Pregrad v. Pregrad, 367 Pa. 177, 80…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Barrett v. HeinerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1951
  2. Peters v. MacHikasSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1954
  3. Pregrad v. PregradSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1951
  4. Howarth v. MillerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1955

3Cited by57 opinions

  1. Bortz v. NoonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1999
  2. Pinney v. Nokia, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2005
  3. College Watercolor Group, Inc. v. William H. Newbauer, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1976
  4. Germantown Manufacturing Co. v. RawlinsonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1985
  5. Shane v. HoffmannSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1974

52 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