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.

WADDELL v. SHRIBER ET AL. (02/02/76)

decided: February 2, 1976.

WADDELL
v.
SHRIBER ET AL., APPELLANTS



Appeal from order of Court of Common Pleas, Civil Division, of Allegheny County, Jan. T., 1975, No. 1095, in case of Marshall Waddell v. George Shriber, R. King Rainier, Sorrell R. Naft, Robert C. Arthurs, Karl F. Meyers, individuals, and B.M.W. & Co., a partnership.

COUNSEL

Robert Engel, with him Alan A. Garfinkel, Foster S. Goldman, Jr., and Berkman, Ruslander, Pohl, Lieber & Engel, for appellants.

Charles B. Knox, with him James D. Morton, Clayton A. Sweeney, George L. Cass, and Buchanan, Ingersoll, Rodewald, Kyle & Buerger, for appellee.

Watkins, P. J., Hoffman, Cercone, Price, Van der Voort, and Spaeth, JJ. (Jacobs, J., absent). Opinion by Hoffman, J.

Author: Hoffman

[ 238 Pa. Super. Page 243]

As the result of the dissolution of a security brokerage partnership of which the appellee, Marshall Waddell, was a partner, and the subsequent formation of a new partnership by the appellee's former partners, the appellee commenced actions in equity and law. Our Supreme Court heard the appeal of the suit in equity, and on November 26, 1975, it stayed the proceedings in equity pending arbitration. Waddell v. Shriber, Pa. , 348 A.2d 96 (1975).

The facts, as set forth by our Supreme Court, are as follows:

"On September 24, 1974, thirteen of the fifteen partners of appellant Babbitt, Meyers & Waddell elected to dissolve the partnership. Under the partnership agreement, dissolution could be affected at the instance of any partner. A committee comprised of appellants Shriber, Rainier, and Naft was named to direct the liquidation of the dissolved partnership. Although appellee attended this meeting, he abstained from the decision to dissolve the partnership upon the advice of counsel.

"The following day, appellee's former partners formed a new partnership, appellant B.M.W. & Co. The liquidation committee of the dissolved partnership concluded that liquidation could be accomplished by allowing each of the former partners other than appellee to contribute his share of the dissolved partnership's assets to B.M.W. & Co. and by tendering to appellee his proportional share of the assets of the dissolved partnership in cash. The committee, with the aid of a certified public accountant retained by the dissolved partnership, calculated appellee's share and offered it to him. Appellee, however, rejected the amount offered as inadequate.

"On October 2, 1974, appellants pursuant to a provision in their agreement as allied members of the

[ 238 Pa. Super. Page 244]

New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) submitted the resulting dispute to the Board of Arbitration of the NYSE which accepted jurisdiction and which sent appropriate notice to appellee." Waddell v. Shriber, supra at , 348 A.2d at 98.

Four weeks later, appellee commenced his actions in equity and law. In his complaint in law, appellee alleged that the appellants conspired to convert his interest in the partnership of Babbitt, Meyers & Waddell, and that as part of their conspiracy, the appellants defamed the appellee. On November 8, 1974, a hearing was held in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County. At the beginning of the hearing, the appellants petitioned the court to stay the action until the matter had been resolved by ...


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.