Legal Opinion

Golder v. Bogash

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided January 10, 1938No. Appeal, 49PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Maxey,

The appellant, Mandes Golder, is a judgment creditor of defendant, Harry J. Bogash, and as such he is seeking to attach two judgments against the garnishee, the Philadelphia Pure Rye Whiskey Distilling Company, which were entered in favor of Bogash as use plaintiff. The judgments stand in the name of “Harry J. Bogash, Agent.” If Bogash as an individual has the beneficial right to these judgments, Golder’s attachment should prevail. If Bogash holds these judgments merely as agent or fiduciary for another, who is entitled to the beneficial interest and who owes no…

2Cases cited22 opinions

  1. Evans v. Penn Mutual Life InsuranceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1936
  2. Readshaw Et Ux. v. MontgomerySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1933
  3. Krewson v. SawyerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1920
  4. Keiser v. Philadelphia Transportation Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1946
  5. Knight v. Red B. T. Co. and A. Ins. Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1932

17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Tremont Township School District v. Western Anthracite Coal Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1955
  2. Bartram Building & Loan Ass'n v. EgglestonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1939
  3. Epstein v. Erie Indemnity Co., Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Erie County1940
  4. Flanagan v. JenningsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1938
  5. Greco v. Musicraft Records, Inc., Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County1950

2 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