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.

LINDENFELSER v. LINDENFELSER. (07/02/59)

July 2, 1959

LINDENFELSER, APPELLANT,
v.
LINDENFELSER.



Appeal, No. 7, Jan. T., 1959, from decree of Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County, May T., 1955, No. 2, in case of Joseph W. Lindenfelser, Jr. v. Clara G. Lindenfelser. Decree reversed; reargument refused September 9, 1959. Equity.Before SATTERTHWAITE, J. Adjudication filed dismissing complaint, plaintiff's exceptions to the adjudication dismissed and decree entered. Plaintiff appealed.

COUNSEL

David Freeman, with him Harry J. Liederbach, for appellant.

William M. Power, for appellee.

Before Bell, Musmanno, Jones, Cohen and Bok, JJ.

Author: Bok

[ 396 Pa. Page 531]

OPINION BY MR. JUSTICE BOK

This is the third appearance here of this case.

At 383 Pa. 424 (1956) we reversed a summary dismissal of plaintiff's request for a preliminary injunction and for the appointment of a receiver and remanded the record for a hearing, with an order to the lower court to determine all questions. A hearing was held and an adjudication filed, denying the injunction and receiver, without prejudice, since plaintiff again appealed at once, to the ultimate merits. At 385 Pa. 342 (1956), we affirmed the denial of preliminary relief.

Another hearing was then held on the merits, and an adjudication, supplemental adjudication, and final decree were filed, dismissing the complaint. Plaintiff has appealed.

Several questions have been solved along the way. Since the parties are man and wife, separated but not divorced, counsel agree that there is no case for partition of the three parcels of real estate, which are all held by the entireties. The court below also ordered defendant to account from August 15, 1954, and she did so. Counsel further agree that the parties have an

[ 396 Pa. Page 532]

    equal right to possession and use of the properties, and that defendant is entitled to proper support.

Plaintiff now argues two questions. The first is the need for an injunction and for the appointment of a receiver: the ...


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.