Meyers v. Ritter

41 Pa. Super. 590, 1910 Pa. Super. LEXIS 272
Superior Court of Pennsylvania·Decided March 3, 1910·No. Appeal, No. 182·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Opinion by

Orlady, J.,

This case was heard on bill, answer and proof. The final decree was entered enjoining and restraining the defendant from selling, assigning, transferring or in any way alienating or disposing of any of the stock which had been pledged as collateral for a loan. From a careful examination of all the testimony in the case, we find ample authority for the conclusion reached by the learned trial judge.

Originally there were thirty-four assignments of error; sixteen of these are now pressed on our attention which the appellant disposes of under two heads, and these are to be determined entirely as questions of fact. The making of the loan and the pledging of the security was admitted, the subse[591]*591quent withdrawal of the power of attorney and the attempt to divert the securities from the purpose for. which they were pledged is abundantly established by the testimony, and during the trial all question of possible usury was eliminated from the case.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

Meyers v. Ritter, 41 Pa. Super. 590, 1910 Pa. Super. LEXIS 272 (Pa. Ct. App. 1910).

41 Pa. Super. 590 (Meyers v. Ritter) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Moore Et Ux. v. Doyle
85 Pa. Super. 406 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1925)