Romig v. Denkel, Exr.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Romig v. Denkel, Exr.

192 A. 657, 326 Pa. 419, 1937 Pa. LEXIS 492

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedMay 10, 1937

DocketAppeal, 186

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 192 A. 657 (Romig v. Denkel, Exr.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Romig v. Denkel, Exr., 192 A. 657, 326 Pa. 419, 1937 Pa. LEXIS 492 (Pa. 1937).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam,

Ella Amanda Printzenhoff made a deposit of her own money in the West Milton State Bank, designating it: “Ella Amanda Printzenhoff or Mrs. Ellen Eomig.” On the death of Ella Amanda Printzenhoff the account was claimed by Ellen Eomig as the survivor of a joint tenancy therein.

The court below determined as a matter of law that under the evidence submitted there was no right of sur *420 vivorsbip and directed a verdict for the defendants. The proofs failed to establish a joint tenancy and the case is ruled by Zellner’s Est., 816 Pa. 202, 172 A. 715.

The assignments of error relating to the court’s exclusion of certain testimony offered by plaintiff are •without merit and are accordingly dismissed.

Judgment affirmed.

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