Kabet v. Stevenson

Third Circuit

Kabet v. Stevenson

88 F.2d 993, 1937 U.S. App. LEXIS 3299

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedFebruary 26, 1937

DocketNo. 6158

StatusPublished

This text of 88 F.2d 993 (Kabet v. Stevenson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Kabet v. Stevenson, 88 F.2d 993, 1937 U.S. App. LEXIS 3299 (3d Cir. 1937).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. The facts are set forth in our prior opinion in which we directed that the right of Dr. Stevenson to a set-off and counterclaim be determined by a jury. Stevenson v. Ruth (C.C.A.) 76 F.(2d) 501.

On the second trial the right to a set-off was conceded. The only issue left for the jury to determine, therefore, was whether the stock pledged by Dr. Stevenson as collateral was sold by the receiver of the bank without notice to him and for less than its fair market value in a manner which amounted to a lack of due diligence on the part of the bank as pledgee. The jury by its verdict upon proper instructions by the learned trial judge found that the pledgee did not exercise due diligence and care in disposing of the collateral. There was sufficient evidence to sustain this finding.

We are not impressed by the appellant’s contention that the pleadings were insufficient to permit the admission of the evidence submitted on behalf of the appellee.

The judgment of the court below is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. The facts are set forth in our prior opinion in which we directed that the right of Dr. Stevenson to a set-off and counterclaim be determined by a jury. Stevenson v. Ruth (C.C.A.) 76 F.(2d) 501.

On the second trial the right to a set-off was conceded. The only issue left for the jury to determine, therefore, was whether the stock pledged by Dr. Stevenson as collateral was sold by the receiver of the bank without notice to him and for less than its fair market value in a manner which amounted to a lack of due diligence on the part of the bank as pledgee. The jury by its verdict upon proper instructions by the learned trial judge found that the pledgee did not exercise due diligence and care in disposing of the collateral. There was sufficient evidence to sustain this finding.

We are not impressed by the appellant’s contention that the pleadings were insufficient to permit the admission of the evidence submitted on behalf of the appellee.

The judgment of the court below is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

88 F.2d 993, 1937 U.S. App. LEXIS 3299, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kabet-v-stevenson-ca3-1937.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack