Polis v. Fratkin

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Polis v. Fratkin

149 A.2d 156, 188 Pa. Super. 586, 1959 Pa. Super. LEXIS 592

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedMarch 18, 1959

DocketAppeal, 304

StatusPublished

This text of 149 A.2d 156 (Polis v. Fratkin) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Polis v. Fratkin, 149 A.2d 156, 188 Pa. Super. 586, 1959 Pa. Super. LEXIS 592 (Pa. Ct. App. 1959).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Woodside, J.,

This is a replevin action which, with another replevin action brought by the defendant in this action against the plaintiff, grew out of services rendered by a firm of accountants to a firm of lawyers. Each firm is seeking the return of papers allegedly belonging to the other firm, and each asks a money verdict against the other. These matters should be disposed of at a pretrial conference where professional men of the type here involved would be able to discuss their differences intelligently, and, under the supervision of the judge, arrive at a just solution of the controversy without resorting to prolonged litigation hardly merited by the circumstances of this case.

The matter now before us, which could only partially dispose of the controversy, was properly decided by the court below.

The order is affirmed on the opinion of Judge Boyle for the court below, which is published in 16 Pa. D. & C. 2d 298.

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

Opinion by

Woodside, J.,

This is a replevin action which, with another replevin action brought by the defendant in this action against the plaintiff, grew out of services rendered by a firm of accountants to a firm of lawyers. Each firm is seeking the return of papers allegedly belonging to the other firm, and each asks a money verdict against the other. These matters should be disposed of at a pretrial conference where professional men of the type here involved would be able to discuss their differences intelligently, and, under the supervision of the judge, arrive at a just solution of the controversy without resorting to prolonged litigation hardly merited by the circumstances of this case.

The matter now before us, which could only partially dispose of the controversy, was properly decided by the court below.

The order is affirmed on the opinion of Judge Boyle for the court below, which is published in 16 Pa. D. & C. 2d 298.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

149 A.2d 156, 188 Pa. Super. 586, 1959 Pa. Super. LEXIS 592, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/polis-v-fratkin-pasuperct-1959.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack