Stamper v. Augenblick

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Stamper v. Augenblick

41 A.2d 573, 352 Pa. 21

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedDecember 7, 1944

DocketAppeal, 286

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 41 A.2d 573 (Stamper v. Augenblick) 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

Stamper v. Augenblick, 41 A.2d 573, 352 Pa. 21 (Pa. 1944).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam,

Plaintiff complains that his amended bill was dismissed on preliminary objections filed by both defendants : Equity Rules 48 and 49. The defendants are “Morris Augenblick, individually, and as executor of the Estate of Jacob Augenblick, otherwise known as Jack Augenblick” and Edward K. Tryon Co., a corporation.

Prom the bill and the amendment, we gather (1) that plaintiff and his wife, for his account, “advanced” money to Jacob Augenblick, defendant’s testator, to enable Augenblick to engage in stock speculation for the equal benefit of, plaintiff and Augenblick; (2) that Augenblick had applied for or had obtained a patent for an invention of fishing tackle and, on September 21, 1938, after the joint stock speculation had been going on for some time, discharged his obligation to plaintiff to repay the “advances” made for speculation, by agreeing to pay him “one-half of any net proceeds that [Augenblick] received from the earnings” of the patent; (3) after Augenblick’s death, his executor sold the fishing tackle business and the patent to Edward K. *23 Tryon Co. for $3,000, which plaintiff alleges to be an inadequate price.

Augenbliek died February 1, 1944. His estate is being administered by Ms executor. The plaintiff prays for a receiver for a partnership and for an accounting but there is no averment of facts that would support a finding that a partnership had existed: compare Kirshon v. Friedman, 349 Pa. 171, 36 A. 2d 647. If the executor committed a devastavit, as the plaintiff alleges, he may complain to the Orphans’ Court which has jurisdiction of the executor’s administration: Mauser v. Mauser, 326 Pa. 257, 192 A. 137; Slagle’s Estate, 335 Pa. 552, 7 A. 2d 353; Real Estate Savings, etc., Co. v. Lewis, 340 Pa. 86, 16 A. 2d 13; Landis v. Landis, 343 Pa. 252, 22 A. 2d 908. While a creditor may proceed in the common pleas in a proper case to establish the amount of his claim, he must aver it. Other objections need not be referred to.

Decree affirmed at appellant’s costs.

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

Per Curiam,

Plaintiff complains that his amended bill was dismissed on preliminary objections filed by both defendants : Equity Rules 48 and 49. The defendants are “Morris Augenblick, individually, and as executor of the Estate of Jacob Augenblick, otherwise known as Jack Augenblick” and Edward K. Tryon Co., a corporation.

Prom the bill and the amendment, we gather (1) that plaintiff and his wife, for his account, “advanced” money to Jacob Augenblick, defendant’s testator, to enable Augenblick to engage in stock speculation for the equal benefit of, plaintiff and Augenblick; (2) that Augenblick had applied for or had obtained a patent for an invention of fishing tackle and, on September 21, 1938, after the joint stock speculation had been going on for some time, discharged his obligation to plaintiff to repay the “advances” made for speculation, by agreeing to pay him “one-half of any net proceeds that [Augenblick] received from the earnings” of the patent; (3) after Augenblick’s death, his executor sold the fishing tackle business and the patent to Edward K. *23 Tryon Co. for $3,000, which plaintiff alleges to be an inadequate price.

Augenbliek died February 1, 1944. His estate is being administered by Ms executor. The plaintiff prays for a receiver for a partnership and for an accounting but there is no averment of facts that would support a finding that a partnership had existed: compare Kirshon v. Friedman, 349 Pa. 171, 36 A. 2d 647. If the executor committed a devastavit, as the plaintiff alleges, he may complain to the Orphans’ Court which has jurisdiction of the executor’s administration: Mauser v. Mauser, 326 Pa. 257, 192 A. 137; Slagle’s Estate, 335 Pa. 552, 7 A. 2d 353; Real Estate Savings, etc., Co. v. Lewis, 340 Pa. 86, 16 A. 2d 13; Landis v. Landis, 343 Pa. 252, 22 A. 2d 908. While a creditor may proceed in the common pleas in a proper case to establish the amount of his claim, he must aver it. Other objections need not be referred to.

Decree affirmed at appellant’s costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

41 A.2d 573, 352 Pa. 21, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stamper-v-augenblick-pa-1944.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack