Gerson v. Pennsylvania Glass Manufacturing Co.
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 14, Oct. T., 1920, by plaintiff, from judgment of Municipal Court of Philadelphia, Nov. T., 1918, No. 372, for defendant in case tried by the court without a jury in the suit of Abraham Gerson v. Pennsylvania Glass and Manufacturing Company, a corporation, and Nathan Koshar. Issue on an interpleader framed under the Act of May 26, 1897, P. L. 95. Before Knowles, J., without a jury.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 14, Oct. T., 1920, by plaintiff, from judgment of Municipal Court of Philadelphia, Nov. T., 1918, No. 372, for defendant in case tried by the court without a jury in the suit of Abraham Gerson v. Pennsylvania Glass and Manufacturing Company, a corporation, and Nathan Koshar. Issue on an interpleader framed under the Act of May 26, 1897, P. L. 95. Before Knowles, J., without a jury. At the trial the only witness was the claimant, who was the father-in-law of Nathan Koshar, the defendant in the execution. The testimony of the plaintiff is summarized in the opinion of the Superior…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Trexler, J.,
The only question is whether the judge who tried the interpleader without a jury had a right to find for the defendant, notwithstanding the only witnesses called testified for the claimant. Did the judge capriciously disregard the testimony supporting the plaintiff’s claim?
Plaintiff claimed the goods levied upon. Koshar, his son-in-law, was the defendant in the execution. The goods levied upon consisted of electric lights and fixtures. These had been sold as Koshar’s property and bought by Englebach. . The story runs that the latter went to New York, saw Gerson, the…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Stein v. Hopewell Chocolate Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1925