Gilberti v. Coraopolis Trust Co.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Gilberti v. Coraopolis Trust Co.

19 A.2d 408, 342 Pa. 161, 1941 Pa. LEXIS 498

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedMarch 26, 1941

DocketAppeal, 175

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 19 A.2d 408 (Gilberti v. Coraopolis Trust Co.) 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

Gilberti v. Coraopolis Trust Co., 19 A.2d 408, 342 Pa. 161, 1941 Pa. LEXIS 498 (Pa. 1941).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam,

This was a bill for a decree declaring void, as pro^ cured by fraud, a deed of trust of real and personal property executed by plaintiff to defendant trust company, and for reconveyance and re-delivery of the trust property, and for an account, etc.. The plaintiff is the widow of Luigi Gilberti who died January, 1938, testate, leaving his property to plaintiff, his second wife, and legacies of $5.00 each to Ms six children by a former marriage. These six children, who take on the death of the plaintiff, are co-defendants with the trust company. The case appears to have been most carefully considered by the learned chancellor and the court in banc, who, in the adjudication and in the opinion on exceptions, have so fully covered every phase of the case now presented on appeal that we can add nothing to what was said below. Briefly, the bill was based on averments of conspiracy of appellant’s counsel, her interpreter, defendant trust company’s officers and defendant children to defraud plaintiff. The findings of fact, based on evidence and not challenged * by assignments of error, not only completely negative such suggestion, but show that there was no foundation for the *163 suit. The rule is settled that to set aside an instrument on the ground of fraudulent misrepresentation, the evidence relied on to establish it must be clear, precise and indubitable: Foley v. Wasserman, 319 Pa. 420, 424, 179 A. 595; Broida v. Travelers’ Insurance Co., 316 Pa. 444, 447, 175 A. 492. As demonstrated by the opinions filed below, plaintiff failed to bring herself within the rule.

Decree affirmed, costs to be paid by appellant.

*

In appellant’s brief it is said: “The argument will be confined strictly to matters of law. The facts found by the Chancellor, so far as they are involved in this appeal, are accepted; but the Court below erred in applying the law to the findings of fact.”

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

Per Curiam,

This was a bill for a decree declaring void, as pro^ cured by fraud, a deed of trust of real and personal property executed by plaintiff to defendant trust company, and for reconveyance and re-delivery of the trust property, and for an account, etc.. The plaintiff is the widow of Luigi Gilberti who died January, 1938, testate, leaving his property to plaintiff, his second wife, and legacies of $5.00 each to Ms six children by a former marriage. These six children, who take on the death of the plaintiff, are co-defendants with the trust company. The case appears to have been most carefully considered by the learned chancellor and the court in banc, who, in the adjudication and in the opinion on exceptions, have so fully covered every phase of the case now presented on appeal that we can add nothing to what was said below. Briefly, the bill was based on averments of conspiracy of appellant’s counsel, her interpreter, defendant trust company’s officers and defendant children to defraud plaintiff. The findings of fact, based on evidence and not challenged * by assignments of error, not only completely negative such suggestion, but show that there was no foundation for the *163 suit. The rule is settled that to set aside an instrument on the ground of fraudulent misrepresentation, the evidence relied on to establish it must be clear, precise and indubitable: Foley v. Wasserman, 319 Pa. 420, 424, 179 A. 595; Broida v. Travelers’ Insurance Co., 316 Pa. 444, 447, 175 A. 492. As demonstrated by the opinions filed below, plaintiff failed to bring herself within the rule.

Decree affirmed, costs to be paid by appellant.

*

In appellant’s brief it is said: “The argument will be confined strictly to matters of law. The facts found by the Chancellor, so far as they are involved in this appeal, are accepted; but the Court below erred in applying the law to the findings of fact.”

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

19 A.2d 408, 342 Pa. 161, 1941 Pa. LEXIS 498, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gilberti-v-coraopolis-trust-co-pa-1941.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack