Case Name: Publicker Commercial Alcohol Company v. Pottash Brothers B. & L. Assn.
Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1932-03-05
Citations: 104 Pa. Super. 534
Docket Number: Appeal No. 415
Parties: Publicker Commercial Alcohol Company v. Pottash Brothers B. & L. Assn.
Judges: Before Trexler, P. J., Keller, Linn, Gawthrop, Cunningham, Baldrigb and Stadtfeld, JJ.
Reporter: Pennsylvania Superior Court Reports
Volume: 104
Pages: 534–535

Head Matter:
Publicker Commercial Alcohol Company v. Pottash Brothers B. & L. Assn.
Argued November 20, 1931.
Before Trexler, P. J., Keller, Linn, Gawthrop, Cunningham, Baldrigb and Stadtfeld, JJ.
Earl Jay Gratz, and with him J. Maurice Gray for appellant.
Simon Pearl, and with him Henry Arronson, for appellee.
March 5, 1932:

Opinion:
Opinion by
Tbbxler, P. J.,
This is an action of assumpsit. The plaintiff gave notice of a desire to withdraw its stock in the defendant building and loan association. The payment not being made, a suit was instituted. The parties then entered into a written agreement of settlement, the defendant agreeing to pay the claim in monthly installments, and, failing to do this, it was agreed that judgment might be entered against the defendant for the amount remaining unpaid.
Judgment was entered, and again there was an agreement made for the payment of the judgment in monthly installments. There was a failure to live up to the agreement and the plaintiff issued execution. The defendant then petitioned the court to restrain the execution and this was done.
The court held "that even where a withdrawing stockholder has secured judgment, the nature of his claim remains unchanged, and the court may stay Ms execution in order to prevent Mm from being paid out of turn." We have tMs day decided the same question in the case of Elva Publicker v. Pottash Brothers Building and Loan Association, 104 Pa. Superior Ct. 530, and have reversed the judgment because the judge declined to restrain execution under circumstances similar to those in the present case. It is not necessary for ns to repeat here what we have stated there.
The judgment is affirmed.