Legal Opinion · Dissent

Lochinger v. Hanlon

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided March 26, 1943No. Appeal, 80Published

1Dissent

Dissenting Opinion by

Mr. Chief Justice Maxey:

What this plaintiff is attempting to do in this action is to repudiate his written contract and if the law as laid down in a long and consistent line of cases is adhered to by this court his attempt will be frustrated. Paraphrasing slightly what Chief Justice J. Hay Brown said in his dissenting opinion at page 348 in Johnson’s Estate, 249 Pa. 339, 94 A. 1082: While it may be gratifying that this 77 year old plaintiff regains sole control of this bank account, “in saving it [for him] the law has not been saved”.

The following propositions are under…

2Cases cited28 opinions

  1. Gianni v. Russell Co., Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1924
  2. Null's EstateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1930
  3. Appeal of WalshSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1888
  4. McConville v. InghamSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1920
  5. Worrall's AppealSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1885

23 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