Barbano v. Barbano

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Barbano v. Barbano

16 A.2d 649, 142 Pa. Super. 371, 1940 Pa. Super. LEXIS 569

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedNovember 18, 1940

DocketAppeal, 133

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 16 A.2d 649 (Barbano v. Barbano) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Barbano v. Barbano, 16 A.2d 649, 142 Pa. Super. 371, 1940 Pa. Super. LEXIS 569 (Pa. Ct. App. 1940).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam,

The statement of questions involved presented by the appellant is, “Was the verdict of the jury so contrary to the weight of the evidence as to require the granting of a new trial?”

We agree with the court below that it was not. The testimony on behalf of the appellant did not, in our opinion, overcome the prima facie evidence, or presumption of the appellee’s title and right of possession of the stock certificate, the life insurance policy and the deed for the cemetery lot — the subjects of this replevin action — which attached by reason of their being issued in his name, as owner of the certificate of stock and cemetery lot and as the insured in the life insurance policy, (18 C. J. S. sections 264 and 476), supported, as it was, by his clear and positive testimony and by the circumstances attending their issue.

The case was submitted to the jury in a charge which was certainly as favorable to the appellant as she was entitled to, under the evidence; and the verdict of the jury in favor of the appellee was supported by the evidence, and was upheld by the court in banc.

We find no abuse of discretion by the lower court in refusing a new trial. See Keyser v. Joshua Davis B. & L. Assn., 133 Pa. Superior Ct. 136, 2 A. 2d 590.

Judgment affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam,

The statement of questions involved presented by the appellant is, “Was the verdict of the jury so contrary to the weight of the evidence as to require the granting of a new trial?”

We agree with the court below that it was not. The testimony on behalf of the appellant did not, in our opinion, overcome the prima facie evidence, or presumption of the appellee’s title and right of possession of the stock certificate, the life insurance policy and the deed for the cemetery lot — the subjects of this replevin action — which attached by reason of their being issued in his name, as owner of the certificate of stock and cemetery lot and as the insured in the life insurance policy, (18 C. J. S. sections 264 and 476), supported, as it was, by his clear and positive testimony and by the circumstances attending their issue.

The case was submitted to the jury in a charge which was certainly as favorable to the appellant as she was entitled to, under the evidence; and the verdict of the jury in favor of the appellee was supported by the evidence, and was upheld by the court in banc.

We find no abuse of discretion by the lower court in refusing a new trial. See Keyser v. Joshua Davis B. & L. Assn., 133 Pa. Superior Ct. 136, 2 A. 2d 590.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

16 A.2d 649, 142 Pa. Super. 371, 1940 Pa. Super. LEXIS 569, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barbano-v-barbano-pasuperct-1940.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack