TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Smith v. Reserve Fund Building & Loan Assn.

Catherine May Smith v. Reserve Fund Building & Loan Assn., Appellant

Smith v. Reserve Fund Bldg. & Loan Assn., 156 A. 902 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1931)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Superior Court of Pennsylvania · State Appellate Courts
Decided
October 1, 1931
Docket
No. 44
Judges
Baldrige, Cunningham, G-Awthrop, Keller, Linn, Teexler
Citations
156 A. 902103 Pa. Super. 941931 Pa. Super. LEXIS 20
Summary
Brown v. Victor Building and Loan Association, 302 Pa. 254; Stone v. Schiller Building and Loan Association, 302 Pa. 544.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Per Curiam

Pee Curiam, The plaintiff was the owner of five shares of the defendant building and loan association. She gave notice of her desire to withdraw and her request being refused, brought suit. In her statement she set forth the value of her shares and the notice of withdrawal. The affidavit of defense alleged the insolvency of the association. The court decided that the averments of insolvency were pleaded in too general and indefinite manner and entered judgment for the plaintiff. This, in the light of Brown v. Victor B. & L. Assn., 302 Pa. 254 , was error. In that case, it was held that the statement of claim filed by the plaintiff was insufficient to sustain a summary judgment because it failed to aver that there was in the treasury of the association, sufficient funds to meet her demand, or that one-half of the funds therein would pay her claim, or that the board of directors had consented to the application of more than one-half of the funds in the treasury to her demand. These averments were not contained in plaintiff’s statement and were essential in order to sustain the judgment. See also Stern v. Ashbourne B.

& L. Assn., 100 Pa. Superior Ct. 561 . The statement being insufficient, judgment cannot be entered against the defendant: Parry v. 1st National Bank of Lansford, 270 Pa. 556 (frequently cited). It is proper to state that the decision in the Brown case was handed down after the lower court in the present case had entered judgment.

The judgment is reversed with a procedendo.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1933: 219332026peak 1933 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Rosenblatt v. Potential Building & Loan Ass'n169 A. 24 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1933)
  2. Wertheimer v. Morris Haber B. & L. Ass'n172 A. 15 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1933)

Most recent

  1. Wertheimer v. Morris Haber B. & L. Ass'n172 A. 15 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1933)
  2. Rosenblatt v. Potential Building & Loan Ass'n169 A. 24 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1933)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 3

DepthCaseCited by
Parry v. First Nat'l Bank, 113 A. 847 (Pa. 1921) 65
Brown v. Victor Bldg. Assn., 153 A. 349 (Pa. 1930) 40
Stern v. Ashbourne B. & L. Ass'n, 100 Pa. Super. 561 (1930) 4

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list