Legal Opinion · Dissent

Commonwealth Ex Rel. Margiotti v. Cunningham

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided November 27, 1939No. Appeal, 315Published

1Dissent

Dissenting Opinion by

Mr. Justice Barnes:

Despite the provisions of the several Acts of Assembly requiring sheriffs to refund the unexpended balances of moneys deposited with them in their official capacity, 1 and in the face of the unanimous decision of this Court in Trestrail, Admr. v. Johnson, 298 Pa. 388, 2 the appellants, as executors of the will of the late Sheriff Cunningham, have retained in their possession large sums of money to which their decedent had no right or title at the time of his death. I do not believe that they have a right to attack in this proceeding the…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Turco Paint & Varnish Co. v. KalodnerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1936
  2. Beaver County Building & Loan Ass'n v. WinowichSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1936
  3. Sugar Notch BoroughSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1899
  4. Gottschall v. CampbellSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1912
  5. Vosburgh's EstateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1924

10 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