Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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

GOODMAN v. KOVACS ET AL. (07/01/74)

SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA


decided: July 1, 1974.

GOODMAN
v.
KOVACS ET AL., APPELLANTS

Appeal from decree of Court of Common Pleas, Trial Division, of Philadelphia, Feb. T., 1968, No. 1631, in case of Sarah Goodman v. Nicholas Kovacs, individually and t/a Housing Improvement Corporation and Housing Improvement Corporation and Richard S. Rommel, individually and t/a Hibberd B. Worrell & Co., and Hibberd B. Worrell & Co., Inc.

COUNSEL

William P. Cole, with him Robert J. Zinn, for appellants.

Charles Polis, with him Polis & Polis, for appellee.

Jones, C. J., Eagen, O'Brien, Roberts, Pomeroy, Nix and Manderino, JJ.

Author: Per Curiam

[ 458 Pa. Page 616]

This appeal is from a decree entered in the trial court refusing to quash a writ of attachment issued in an action in equity. The case has a complicated history which need not now be detailed. Suffice to say the dispute which gave rise to the action was settled by the parties on May 7, 1969, and substantial performance of this agreement has been effected. It was the failure of the defendants to fully comply with the settlement agreement that caused the writ of attachment here involved to issue.

At oral argument, counsel for the plaintiff-appellee indicated his client would be satisfied if the defendants would fully comply with the settlement agreement and counsel for the defendant-appellants stated his clients were ready and willing to do this. It appears to us that justice will be best served if this is accomplished and the action is terminated.

Therefore, we will vacate the decree appealed from and remand the record to the trial court with directions to afford the appellants a reasonable opportunity to fully comply with the settlement agreement. If the appellants refuse or fail to so comply within a reasonable time, the trial court may proceed in accordance with due process to enforce the rights of the plaintiff.

It is so ordered. Costs to be paid by the appellants.

Disposition

Decree vacated and record remanded.

19740701

© 1998 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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