Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

WEISSMAN v. WEISSMAN (02/06/56)

February 6, 1956

WEISSMAN, APPELLANT
v.
WEISSMAN



Appeals, Nos. 253 and 283, Jan. T., 1955, from decree of Court of Common Pleas No. 5 of Philadelphia County, March T., 1952, No. 242, in case of Rese Weissman and Bertha Weissman v. Meyer M. Weissman, also known as Meyer Weissman, and Rose Weissman, also known as Rose Braker. Decree reversed; reargument refused March 3, 1956.

COUNSEL

Harry O. Weinberg, with him Herbert H. Hadra, Maurice Freedman, and Robert H. Arronson, for appellants.

Nochem S. Winnet, with him Wesley H. Caldwell, Fox, Rothschild, O'Brien & Frankel and Roper & Caldwell, for appellees.

Before Stern, C.j., Stearne, Bell, Musmanno and Arnold, JJ.

Author: Arnold

[ 384 Pa. Page 244]

OPINION BY MR. JUSTICE ARNOLD

Plaintiffs appeal from the decree of the court below, sitting in equity, which dismissed their complaint after hearing. The complaint sought reformation of a deed and an accounting for rentals. This is one of

[ 384 Pa. Page 245]

    a number of cases involving the parties and arising out of controversies over these and other properties.

In 1932 Abraham and Bertha Weissman, husband and wife, executed and had recorded a deed conveying a number of properties to "Rose Weissman, wife of Benjamin H. Weissman." The named grantee is one of the defendants in this action. Thereafter Meyer Weissman, son of the grantors, and who is the other defendant, handled the properties as agent. He had been in the employ of his father in the real estate business and had acted as agent in the handling of these properties prior to the conveyance now being contested. In 1952, - twenty years after the conveyance, - plaintiffs filed their complaint. Plaintiff Rose Weissman is the daughter of Abraham Weissman, now deceased, and of Bertha Weissman, the other plaintiff; and defendant Rose Weissman is a daughter-in-law of the grantors.

Answers were filed by both defendants denying the allegations of the complaint, which were that defendant Meyer Weissman, though requested to prepare a deed conveying the properties to plaintiff Rose Weissman, had either inadvertently or fraudulently inserted defendant Rose Weissman's name.

On April 6, 1953, it was stipulated by the plaintiffs and defendant Rose Weissman that the latter was not intended to be the grantee, that she had no interest in the properties, and that the deed be reformed so as to correct the name of the grantee to read "Rose Weissman, daughter of Abraham Weissman" (the plaintiff). Although defendant Meyer Weissman had no notice of the stipulation or its presentation, the court entered a consent ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.