Case ID: pa-super_86/html/0462-01.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

Hockfield v. Woloderker Building & Loan Ass’n, Appellant.
    
      Appeals — Second appeal — Questions presented in former appeal.
    
    Where, on a second appeal,' it appears that the questions presented1 have been disposed of on a former appeal, judgment of the lower court Iwill be affirmed for the reasons set forth in the original opinion.
    Argued November 20, 1925.
    Appeal No. 314 October T., 1925, by defendant from decree of C. P. No. 4-, Philadelphia County, September T., 1923, No. 6955, in the case of Benjamin and Harry Hockfield v. Woloderker Building and Loan Association.
    Before Orlady, P. J., Porter, Henderson, Trexler, Keller, Linn and Gawthrop, JJ. ■
    Affirmed.
    Bill in equity to compel payment of withdrawal value of stock of a building association.
    Before MoCuLLEN, J.
    The facts are stated in the opinion of the Superior Court and the report of the former appeal at 85 Pa. Superior Court 336.
    The Court entered the following decree:
    “And now, to wit, July 9th, 1925, the plaintiffs’ bill in the above-mentioned case having been re-instated by the Superior Court, it is ordered, adjudged and decreed, in accordance with the directions contained in the opinion filed by said court, as follows:
    “1. By virtue of the facts set forth in plaintiffs’1 bill and defendant’s answer, the plaintiffs, upon withdrawing their shares, were entitled to receive from the defendant a sum of money equal to the total payments made by plaintiffs on account of their stock in the defendant association, plus lawful interest on the amount of such payments averaged over the period during which the same were made, less the amount credited by defendant on account of plaintiffs’ mortgage loan; and upon the difference between the said sums plaintiffs are entitled to receive interest from the date at withdrawal of their stock up to this date.
    “2. The defendant is hereby ordered land directed to pay to plaintiffs an amount determined as herein-before set forth, to wit, the sum of $804.30, which amount is calculated in the assessment of damages hereto attached and made a part hereof.
    “3. In addition to the above sum of $804.30, the defendant is ordered and directed to pay all costs of this proceeding.”
    
      November 20, 1925:
    The following stipulation of counsel was filed:
    “It is agreed between counsel for the plaintiff and defendant that the above and foregoing Decree and Assessment of Damages are in accordance with the opinion of the Superior Court filed in the above entitled case.”
    
      Error assigned was the decree of the court.
    
      Bertram K. Wolf, and with him Aarons, Weinstein & Goldman, for appellant.
    
      Joseph A. Allen, for appellee.
   Per Curiam,

This is the second appeal in this proceeding. The opinion of this court in the former appeal, reported at 85 Pa. Superior Ct. 336, disposes of the questions presented by this appeal. The record having been remitted to the court below, the parties to the proceeding agreed upon the amount which the defendant would be required to pay, in accordance with the directions contained in the opinion filed by this court, and that a final decree be entered for that amount, but the defendant did not consent to be bound by said final decree, reserving the right to appeal therefrom. Por the reasons stated in our former opinion the assignments of error are overruled.

The decree is affirmed.