Schwartz v. Hersker

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Schwartz v. Hersker

21 A. 401, 140 Pa. 550, 1891 Pa. LEXIS 870

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedMarch 9, 1891

DocketNo. 102

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 21 A. 401 (Schwartz v. Hersker) 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

Schwartz v. Hersker, 21 A. 401, 140 Pa. 550, 1891 Pa. LEXIS 870 (Pa. 1891).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam:

If the court below had affirmed the defendant’s first point, the case would have been withdrawn from the jury. It does not follow that, because the assignment by Schwartz to Hersker was absolute upon its face, the latter was entitled to collect the money and keep it. There was sufficient evidence of a trust to submit to the jury. Nor was it error to decline the defendant’s second point. This point also contained the vice of withdrawing the case from the jury, and, in addition, assumed the facts. There was evidence to corroborate the plaintiff’s allegations. The third, fourth, fifth, and sixth assignments all refer to the testimony of Frederick Miller. It was alleged that, as the conversation between Miller and the defendant had not been communicated to the plaintiff, it had no relevancy to the [555]*555issue. This position is evidently based upon a mistaken view of the effect of Miller’s testimony. Its very purpose was to show the object of Hersker in obtaining the assignment of the Bank judgments. Such purpose was declared before the assignment was made, and repeated after it had been obtained. As admissions by the defendant, the evidence was clearly competent. The last assignment is disposed of by what has already been said.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Per Curiam:

If the court below had affirmed the defendant’s first point, the case would have been withdrawn from the jury. It does not follow that, because the assignment by Schwartz to Hersker was absolute upon its face, the latter was entitled to collect the money and keep it. There was sufficient evidence of a trust to submit to the jury. Nor was it error to decline the defendant’s second point. This point also contained the vice of withdrawing the case from the jury, and, in addition, assumed the facts. There was evidence to corroborate the plaintiff’s allegations. The third, fourth, fifth, and sixth assignments all refer to the testimony of Frederick Miller. It was alleged that, as the conversation between Miller and the defendant had not been communicated to the plaintiff, it had no relevancy to the [555]*555issue. This position is evidently based upon a mistaken view of the effect of Miller’s testimony. Its very purpose was to show the object of Hersker in obtaining the assignment of the Bank judgments. Such purpose was declared before the assignment was made, and repeated after it had been obtained. As admissions by the defendant, the evidence was clearly competent. The last assignment is disposed of by what has already been said.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

21 A. 401, 140 Pa. 550, 1891 Pa. LEXIS 870, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schwartz-v-hersker-pa-1891.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack