Zearfoss v. Farmers & Mechanics Institute
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeals, Nos. 424 and 425, Jan T., 1892, by plaintiffs, Zearfoss & Hilliard and Henry B. Richards, from judgment of C. P. Northampton Co., Oct. T., 1889, Nos. 50 and 63, on case tried by the court without a jury, under act of April 22, 1874. Assumpsit for premium at agricultural fair, etc.
Read the full summary
Appeals, Nos. 424 and 425, Jan T., 1892, by plaintiffs, Zearfoss & Hilliard and Henry B. Richards, from judgment of C. P. Northampton Co., Oct. T., 1889, Nos. 50 and 63, on case tried by the court without a jury, under act of April 22, 1874. Assumpsit for premium at agricultural fair, etc. The case was tried by Reeder, J., without a jury, who found the following facts : Defendant was an agricultural society incorporated in 1856. At the annual election held in 1887, a contest arose between two factions of the corporation which resulted in a writ of quo warranto being issued to determine the…
1Opinion of the Court
Richards v. Institute.
Per Curiam,
In accordance with provisions of the act of April 22, 1874, the parties dispensed with trial by jury and submitted the decision of their case to the court.
The findings of fact are clearly stated in the opinion of the learned trial judge, and their correctness is not challenged by any of the specifications of error. The latter are all directed exclusively to some of his conclusions of law. Among other things, he found that the acting, or de facto directors, had possession of the books of the corporation defendant, and control of its property, real and personal.…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Atlantic Trust Co. v. The VigilanciaCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1896
- Crozer's EstateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1929
- Baggot v. TurnerWashington Supreme Court · 1899
- Hertzberg v. Pittsburgh Taxicab Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1914
- Valle v. PressmanCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1962
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.