Russo Appeal

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Russo Appeal

47 A.2d 542, 159 Pa. Super. 143, 1946 Pa. Super. LEXIS 344

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedApril 16, 1946

DocketAppeal, 44

StatusPublished

This text of 47 A.2d 542 (Russo Appeal) 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

Russo Appeal, 47 A.2d 542, 159 Pa. Super. 143, 1946 Pa. Super. LEXIS 344 (Pa. Ct. App. 1946).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Hirt, J.,

Appellants in this case question the refusal of the court to entertain their claim for $41,116.77 seized by police officers on February 11, 1944, in a raid of the premises owned and occupied by Frank Prezioso. (His conviction of conducting a numbers lottery was affirmed in 157 Pa. Superior Ct. 80, 41 A. 2d 350). Five days after the seizure, Christina Prezioso, his mother, petitioned the court for a return of the money to her, on her allegation that she was the owner of all of it. After hearing, her claim was refused. On appeal, that order was affirmed in Potter Title and Trust Company Petition, [substituted for petitioner, as administrator of her estate, on her death] 157 Pa. Superior Ct. 254, 42 A. 2d 456. The district attorney of Allegheny County filed his petition in the present proceeding, alleging that the above fund, when seized, was an integral part of the gambling operation conducted by Frank Prezioso, and prayed for an order of forfeiture as outlaw property. To this petition appellants filed their answer. On petition and answer the lower court adjudged the fund forfeited and directed its payment into the county treasury.

The propriety of a seizure may be attacked by an owner seeking to recover his property. Rosen v. Supt. Police Le Strange, 120 Pa. Superior Ct. 59, 181 A. 797. *145 But regardless of whether statutory procedure was strictly complied with in this proceeding, appellants have no standing to question the order, for by their answer they admit that they are strangers to the fund and have no title to it. Their answer merely avers: “That the testimony at a hearing before this Honorable Court, given by Christina Prezioso, shows that the money actually belonged to her children, the claimants herein mentioned ; that she was holding it for them, and that it was theirs after her death”. The “hearing”, to which they refer, was in the above proceeding brought by Christina Prezioso in which she asserted title to the fund. The order in that case, affirmed by this court, is a final determination that Christina Prezioso was not the owner of any of the money seized. That question is now res adjudícala. Appellants, therefore, who claim solely as her heirs, have no title to the fund and no appealable interest in the present proceeding.

Appeal dismissed.

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

Opinion by

Hirt, J.,

Appellants in this case question the refusal of the court to entertain their claim for $41,116.77 seized by police officers on February 11, 1944, in a raid of the premises owned and occupied by Frank Prezioso. (His conviction of conducting a numbers lottery was affirmed in 157 Pa. Superior Ct. 80, 41 A. 2d 350). Five days after the seizure, Christina Prezioso, his mother, petitioned the court for a return of the money to her, on her allegation that she was the owner of all of it. After hearing, her claim was refused. On appeal, that order was affirmed in Potter Title and Trust Company Petition, [substituted for petitioner, as administrator of her estate, on her death] 157 Pa. Superior Ct. 254, 42 A. 2d 456. The district attorney of Allegheny County filed his petition in the present proceeding, alleging that the above fund, when seized, was an integral part of the gambling operation conducted by Frank Prezioso, and prayed for an order of forfeiture as outlaw property. To this petition appellants filed their answer. On petition and answer the lower court adjudged the fund forfeited and directed its payment into the county treasury.

The propriety of a seizure may be attacked by an owner seeking to recover his property. Rosen v. Supt. Police Le Strange, 120 Pa. Superior Ct. 59, 181 A. 797. *145 But regardless of whether statutory procedure was strictly complied with in this proceeding, appellants have no standing to question the order, for by their answer they admit that they are strangers to the fund and have no title to it. Their answer merely avers: “That the testimony at a hearing before this Honorable Court, given by Christina Prezioso, shows that the money actually belonged to her children, the claimants herein mentioned ; that she was holding it for them, and that it was theirs after her death”. The “hearing”, to which they refer, was in the above proceeding brought by Christina Prezioso in which she asserted title to the fund. The order in that case, affirmed by this court, is a final determination that Christina Prezioso was not the owner of any of the money seized. That question is now res adjudícala. Appellants, therefore, who claim solely as her heirs, have no title to the fund and no appealable interest in the present proceeding.

Appeal dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

47 A.2d 542, 159 Pa. Super. 143, 1946 Pa. Super. LEXIS 344, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/russo-appeal-pasuperct-1946.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack