Case ID: pa_155/html/0122-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per, Curiam,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Third Reformed Dutch Church of Philadelphia v. Jones, Appellant.
    
      Suit against stake holders—Judgment—Execution—Corporation—Name.
    
    Where suit is brought by the Third Reformed Dutch Church, a corporation, and defendant does not deny that he has moneys and securities belonging to the Third Reformed Dutch Church, but avers that the plaintiff is not the church to which the moneys and securities belong, judgment-should be entered for plaintiff, and the question of ownership subsequently determined on execution.
    Argued Jan. 20, 1893.
    Appeal, No. 77, July T., 1892, by defendant, Daniel S. Jones, from judgment of C. P. No. 1, Pbila. Co., June T., 1888, No. 872, on verdict for plaintiff.
    Before Paxson, C. J., Sterrett, Green, Williams, McCollum, Mitchell and Dean, JJ.
    Assumpsit for moneys and securities in the hands of defendant belonging to the Third Reformed Dutch Church of Philadelphia.
    
      At the trial, defendant did not deny that he held moneys and securities belonging to the Third Reformed Dutch Church, but claimed that plaintiff was not the Third Reformed Dutch Church which owned the moneys and securities. Defendant offered to prove that Robert B. Davidson was the president of the board of trustees of the Third Reformed Church at the time this suit was brought, and that the men bringing this suit had no authority from the church to bring this suit, and that the seal attached to the statement filed in the case is not the seal of the Third Reformed Church of Philadelphia.
    Objected to. Objection sustained and exception. [5]
    Binding instructions were given for plaintiff. [7]
    Verdict and judgment for plaintiff for 10,000 United States four per cent bonds, value $11,882.27, 8,000 Newland mortgage, $8,000; two trustees’ minute books and account books of Third Church. Defendant appealed.
    
      ¡Errors assigned were inter alia, (5) ruling on evidence, quoting the offer but not the bill of exception; (7) instruction as above, quoting it; (11) in entering judgment on verdict.
    
      Wm. Hopple, Jr., Francis A. Osbourn with him, for appellant, cited:
    Church v. Jones, 132 Pa. 462.
    
      H. ¡Dubois Miller, J. ¡Rodman Paul and Biddle $ Ward with him, for appellee.
    January 30, 1893 :
   Per, Curiam,

We see no such error in this case as to justify us in reversing the judgment. The controversy has been going on for many years and it is quite time it was settled. The defendant does not deny that he has the moneys and securities in his hands belonging to the Third Reformed Dutch Church which are the subject of this controversy. His anxiety appears to be that the money shall not go to the wrong body. We think he need have no fear upon that head. The plaintiff is the Third Reformed Dutch Church, and if, as he alleges, it is not the true one, the court below has ample power to control the fund. The payment of the judgment by the defendant will discharge him from further liability, and that is all he need concern himself about.

Judgment affirmed.