Hernig v. Bell

Third Circuit

Hernig v. Bell

84 F.2d 1003, 1936 U.S. App. LEXIS 4744

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit·Decided May 25, 1936·No. No. 6065·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The case depends on its own unusual facts which, by reference to the opinion of the court below, (Bender Body Co. v. Quaker City Motor Truck Lines, Inc., 15 F.Supp. 401), can be seen and need not be here repeated.

The basic question is whether the court erred in holding that $1,200 in the hands of the receivers-appelj'ees was not impressed with a trust in appellant’s favor.

After argument and consideration had, we are satisfied the trial court committed no error. Any rights the appellant had in [1004] such policy were not affected by the settlement made by the receivers. So holding, its decree is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The case depends on its own unusual facts which, by reference to the opinion of the court below, (Bender Body Co. v. Quaker City Motor Truck Lines, Inc., 15 F.Supp. 401), can be seen and need not be here repeated.

The basic question is whether the court erred in holding that $1,200 in the hands of the receivers-appelj'ees was not impressed with a trust in appellant’s favor.

After argument and consideration had, we are satisfied the trial court committed no error. Any rights the appellant had in [1004] such policy were not affected by the settlement made by the receivers. So holding, its decree is affirmed.

Hernig v. Bell, 84 F.2d 1003, 1936 U.S. App. LEXIS 4744 (3d Cir. 1936).

Pincite

84 F.2d 1003 (Hernig v. Bell) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related