Seitz v. Fulton National Bank

188 A. 569, 325 Pa. 14, 1936 Pa. LEXIS 563
CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania
DecidedDecember 3, 1936
DocketAppeal, 381
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 188 A. 569 (Seitz v. Fulton National Bank) 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
Seitz v. Fulton National Bank, 188 A. 569, 325 Pa. 14, 1936 Pa. LEXIS 563 (Pa. 1936).

Opinion

Per Curiam,

A statutory demurrer to appellant’s statement of claim having been filed, the court below directed judgment to be entered against him. The appellee is a banking house and the Lancaster Provision Company had on deposit a sum of money which the bank applied to the Company’s overdue notes. This application was made *16 two weeks before the Provision Company went bankrupt. It was alleged by appellant, the trustee in bankruptcy, that the funds on deposit were the proceeds of collections of accounts due the Provision Company while insolvent, and that their application to the overdue notes of the bank constituted an unlawful preference under the Bankruptcy Act. The court below correctly held that the statement of claim did not set up facts showing that the deposits in the bank were out of the ordinary or made under unusual circumstances, and hence the principle of law applies which sanctions the application by a bank of a bankrupt’s account against his notes. See the Bankruptcy Act of July 1,1898, c. 541, 30 U. S. Stat. 565, as amended. Whether this occurs immediately before the act of bankruptcy or not is immaterial (Studley v. Boylston Nat. Bank, 229 U. S. 523, 527). The burden was on the bankrupt’s representative to show circumstances amounting to a voidable preference. The statement of claim did not contain such averments. While the court was correct in sustaining the demurrer, it should have given appellant an opportunity to amend the statement of claim, if possible. When a demurrer to the statement of claim is sustained, the court must give plaintiff an opportunity to amend unless it is clear that the error cannot be cured: Greene County v. Center Twp., 305 Pa. 79; Winters v. Penna. R. R. Co., 304 Pa. 243; Stevens v. Doylestown B. & L. Assn., 321 Pa. 173. On motion, the court below may consider the new statement of claim, if any is filed, and, if insufficient, order accordingly.

The judgment is reversed and appellant is given ten days after the record is returned within which to file an amended statement of claim; if none is filed in that time, judgment is directed to be entered for appellee, with costs.

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

Related

Walter v. Valley Forge Insurance
526 A.2d 434 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1987)
Slaybaugh v. Newman
441 A.2d 429 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1982)
MacE v. Senior Adult Activities Center
423 A.2d 390 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1980)
Morgan v. Martin
74 Pa. D. & C.2d 417 (Luzerne County Court of Common Pleas, 1975)
Framlau Corp. v. Delaware County
299 A.2d 335 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1972)
Niosi v. Aiello
69 A.2d 57 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1949)
Guter v. Donaldson Iron Co.
69 Pa. D. & C. 150 (Lehigh County Court of Common Pleas, 1948)
Churchill v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America
65 Pa. D. & C. 158 (Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas, 1948)
Quaker City Chocolate & Confectionery Co. v. Delhi-Warnock Building Ass'n
53 A.2d 597 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1947)
Adler v. Helsel
25 A.2d 714 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1942)
United Societies of Greek Catholic Religion of U. S. v. Klochak
16 A.2d 373 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1940)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
188 A. 569, 325 Pa. 14, 1936 Pa. LEXIS 563, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/seitz-v-fulton-national-bank-pa-1936.