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.

GREATER VALLEY TERMINAL CORPORATION v. GOODMAN (07/01/64)

July 1, 1964

GREATER VALLEY TERMINAL CORPORATION
v.
GOODMAN, APPELLANT.



Appeals, Nos. 328, 333, 334, 335, 336, 337 and 338, Jan. T., 1963, from order of Court of Common Pleas No. 3 of Philadelphia County, March T., 1957, No. 10,503, in case of Greater Valley Terminal Corporation v. P. J. Goodman, Sarah Sanft, Bessie Finegold et al. Order reversed; reargument refused July 24, 1964.

COUNSEL

Ronald H. Isenberg, with him Jay H. Eiseman, and Barba and Eiseman, for garnishees, appellants.

Martin J. Resnick, with him Howard I. Rubin, Martin Techner, and Techner, Rubin & Shapiro, for garnishees, appellants.

Richard M. Rosenbleeth, with him Steinberg, Richman, Price & Steinbrook, for defendant, appellant.

Robert K. Greenfield, with him M. Melvin Shralow, Edward Greer, and Folz, Bard, Kamsler, Goodis & Greenfield, for Greater Valley Terminal Corporation, appellee.

Before Bell, C.j., Cohen, Eagen, O'brien and Roberts, JJ.

Author: Cohen

[ 415 Pa. Page 2]

OPINION BY MR. JUSTICE COHEN

The issue on this appeal is whether alleged fraudulent transfers can be set aside in supplementary proceedings in aid of execution under Pa. R.C.P. 3118.

Appellee, Greater Valley Terminal Corporation, is a judgment-creditor of appellant Goodman.*fn1 A writ of execution upon property of Goodman in his possession and in the possession of appellants-garnishees was returned unsatisfied. Appellee thereafter filed a petition

[ 415 Pa. Page 3]

    under Pa. R.C.P. 3118 in the court of common pleas for supplementary relief in aid of execution alleging, inter alia, fraudulent conveyances by Goodman to appellants-garnishees of the assets of Goodman's single proprietorship and certain stock certificates.

Appellants*fn2 filed preliminary objections challenging the court's authority to grant the relief requested, and questioning the sufficiency of the petition. The lower court held that full equitable relief was available to appellee under Rule 3118 and that the petition would be considered as a complaint in equity. However, the court sustained the preliminary objections on the ground that a more specific pleading was required. Appellee filed an amended petition and rule to show cause which was set down for hearing. Appellants again filed preliminary objections. After hearing, the court below overruled appellants' ...


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.