Fischer v. Riehl

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Fischer v. Riehl

69 A. 70, 219 Pa. 505, 1908 Pa. LEXIS 610

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedJanuary 6, 1908

DocketAppeal, No. 126

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 69 A. 70 (Fischer v. Riehl) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Fischer v. Riehl, 69 A. 70, 219 Pa. 505, 1908 Pa. LEXIS 610 (Pa. 1908).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam,

The bill being by a principal against an agent for an account was prima facie cognizable in equity. As stated by the . learned judge below, the bill was “ filed to compel an accounting by the defendant, not only of the moneys collected under the power of attorney mentioned, but also of the investments named ; and it is sought in said account to have the defendant surcharged with the investments claimed to be worthless.” There was no denial of the duty to account but a dispute as to some of the items of plaintiff’s claim, and an averment of a settlement. The issue, therefore, was one calling for an account, and the fact that the substantial contest finally narrowed down to a single item did not oust the jurisdiction of equity which had attached on the face of the pleadings.

Decree affirmed.

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

Per Curiam,

The bill being by a principal against an agent for an account was prima facie cognizable in equity. As stated by the . learned judge below, the bill was “ filed to compel an accounting by the defendant, not only of the moneys collected under the power of attorney mentioned, but also of the investments named ; and it is sought in said account to have the defendant surcharged with the investments claimed to be worthless.” There was no denial of the duty to account but a dispute as to some of the items of plaintiff’s claim, and an averment of a settlement. The issue, therefore, was one calling for an account, and the fact that the substantial contest finally narrowed down to a single item did not oust the jurisdiction of equity which had attached on the face of the pleadings.

Decree affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

69 A. 70, 219 Pa. 505, 1908 Pa. LEXIS 610, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fischer-v-riehl-pa-1908.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack