Rosenberg v. Equitable Trust Co.

Third Circuit

Rosenberg v. Equitable Trust Co.

165 F.2d 786, 1948 U.S. App. LEXIS 1957

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedJanuary 20, 1948

DocketNo. 9470

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 165 F.2d 786 (Rosenberg v. Equitable Trust Co.) 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

Rosenberg v. Equitable Trust Co., 165 F.2d 786, 1948 U.S. App. LEXIS 1957 (3d Cir. 1948).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The defendant, executor of the will of Helen Rogers Bradford, deceased, appeals from a summary judgment against it. The judgment was entered in a suit brought by the plaintiff as assignee of Theodore B. Rogers, Jr., upon a claim of $18,500 against the estate based upon an agreement between Mrs. Bradford and Rogers to make certain testamentary provisions in favor of each other. It appears that Rogers, who died before Mrs. Bradford, had made the testamentary provision agreed upon but that Mrs. Bradford had not done so. The district court held that under the agreement the plaintiff, as assignee of Rogers, was a creditor having a valid claim against Mrs. Bradford’s estate and it entered a judgment so declaring. For the reasons stated in the opinion of Judge Leahy, 68 F.Supp. 991, which we adopt, we are satisfied that the judgment was rightly entered in the plaintiff’s favor.

The judgment will accordingly be affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The defendant, executor of the will of Helen Rogers Bradford, deceased, appeals from a summary judgment against it. The judgment was entered in a suit brought by the plaintiff as assignee of Theodore B. Rogers, Jr., upon a claim of $18,500 against the estate based upon an agreement between Mrs. Bradford and Rogers to make certain testamentary provisions in favor of each other. It appears that Rogers, who died before Mrs. Bradford, had made the testamentary provision agreed upon but that Mrs. Bradford had not done so. The district court held that under the agreement the plaintiff, as assignee of Rogers, was a creditor having a valid claim against Mrs. Bradford’s estate and it entered a judgment so declaring. For the reasons stated in the opinion of Judge Leahy, 68 F.Supp. 991, which we adopt, we are satisfied that the judgment was rightly entered in the plaintiff’s favor.

The judgment will accordingly be affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

165 F.2d 786, 1948 U.S. App. LEXIS 1957, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rosenberg-v-equitable-trust-co-ca3-1948.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack