Max Tashman, Individually and Trading as Tashman Realty v. Community Improvement Corp.

Third Circuit

Max Tashman, Individually and Trading as Tashman Realty v. Community Improvement Corp.

243 F.2d 96, 1957 U.S. App. LEXIS 2899

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedApril 8, 1957

Docket12027_1

StatusPublished

This text of 243 F.2d 96 (Max Tashman, Individually and Trading as Tashman Realty v. Community Improvement Corp.) 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

Max Tashman, Individually and Trading as Tashman Realty v. Community Improvement Corp., 243 F.2d 96, 1957 U.S. App. LEXIS 2899 (3d Cir. 1957).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

r n In this suit in the District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania between parties of diverse citizenship the plaintiff sought to recover back from the defendant a down payment made to it under an agreement for the purchase of real estate in Quakertown, Pennsylvania, which was never consummated, together with out-of-pocket expenses and consequential damages. The defendant denied that it was responsible for the default, asserted that it was willing to convey, and counterclaimed for the balance of the purchase price together with damages for alleged fraud on the part of the plaintiff and others.

mi, „ „ , , . ., „ The case came on to trial before a jury ... , , ,. , . . „ which rendered a verdict m favor of the ,, , , . .c... plaintiff for the down payment of $5,000, +t, * A <*in j. interest thereon of $1,375, and $40 out- »„ ■, , L ■ , of-pocket expenses. The jury did not ,, , . ,n award the plaintiff any consequential damages and they found ^ fayor of the plaintiff on the defendant’s counterclaim. A judgment in favor of the plaintiff for $6,415 was entered on the verdict. The defendant has appealed.

We have carefully considered the defendant’s contentions but find them to be without merit and to require no detailed discussion here. It is sufficient to say that the issues in the case were basically factual and were submitted to the jury by Chief Judge Kirkpatrick by interrogatories and a comprehensive charge based upon the applicable law of Pennsyl-vama to which the defendant took no . . valid exceptions. There was ample evi- , , , , dence to support the jury s verdict. It . K , , „ , , , must, therefore, stand as a final deter- ... „ , ’ , , mmation of the controversy between the ,. parties.

In the plaintiff’s brief in this court his counsel made a number of scurrilous and scandalous attacks upon the defendant’s counsel which were wholly *97 improper and to which the latter has quite properly objected. We cannot condone such conduct on the part of a member of our bar. Accordingly on motion of counsel for the defendant the brief filed for the plaintiff appellee in this case will be suppressed and removed from thJ 8 .flleS-, lD ;lddl!fn th6 ?lam' tiff will be denied costs m this court.

The judgment of the district court will be affirmed without costs.

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

PER CURIAM.

r n In this suit in the District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania between parties of diverse citizenship the plaintiff sought to recover back from the defendant a down payment made to it under an agreement for the purchase of real estate in Quakertown, Pennsylvania, which was never consummated, together with out-of-pocket expenses and consequential damages. The defendant denied that it was responsible for the default, asserted that it was willing to convey, and counterclaimed for the balance of the purchase price together with damages for alleged fraud on the part of the plaintiff and others.

mi, „ „ , , . ., „ The case came on to trial before a jury ... , , ,. , . . „ which rendered a verdict m favor of the ,, , , . .c... plaintiff for the down payment of $5,000, +t, * A <*in j. interest thereon of $1,375, and $40 out- »„ ■, , L ■ , of-pocket expenses. The jury did not ,, , . ,n award the plaintiff any consequential damages and they found ^ fayor of the plaintiff on the defendant’s counterclaim. A judgment in favor of the plaintiff for $6,415 was entered on the verdict. The defendant has appealed.

We have carefully considered the defendant’s contentions but find them to be without merit and to require no detailed discussion here. It is sufficient to say that the issues in the case were basically factual and were submitted to the jury by Chief Judge Kirkpatrick by interrogatories and a comprehensive charge based upon the applicable law of Pennsyl-vama to which the defendant took no . . valid exceptions. There was ample evi- , , , , dence to support the jury s verdict. It . K , , „ , , , must, therefore, stand as a final deter- ... „ , ’ , , mmation of the controversy between the ,. parties.

In the plaintiff’s brief in this court his counsel made a number of scurrilous and scandalous attacks upon the defendant’s counsel which were wholly *97 improper and to which the latter has quite properly objected. We cannot condone such conduct on the part of a member of our bar. Accordingly on motion of counsel for the defendant the brief filed for the plaintiff appellee in this case will be suppressed and removed from thJ 8 .flleS-, lD ;lddl!fn th6 ?lam' tiff will be denied costs m this court.

The judgment of the district court will be affirmed without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

243 F.2d 96, 1957 U.S. App. LEXIS 2899, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/max-tashman-individually-and-trading-as-tashman-realty-v-community-ca3-1957.