January 18, 1937.
March 22, 1937.
Appeals — Review — Conclusions of trial court — Consideration for notes — Fraud — Opening of judgments — Findings of federal district court — Conclusiveness.
In a proceeding upon issues framed after the opening of judgments, in which the trial judge, sitting without a jury, concluded that the federal district court had jurisdiction to pass upon the validity of the claims of the use-plaintiff, represented by the judgment, against the bankrupt estate of defendant, that the notes in question were given without any consideration passing from plaintiff to defendant or from the use-plaintiff to plaintiff, that the notes were fraudulently entered, that the federal court found that use-plaintiff had no claim against defendant upon the notes, and that such finding was binding in this proceeding, and entered judgments for defendants, the judgments were affirmed, on appeal, on the conclusions of the trial judge.
Before SCHAFFER, MAXEY, DREW, LINN, STERN and BARNES, JJ.
Appeals, Nos. 18 and 19, Jan. T., 1937, from judgments of C. P. Montgomery Co., Sept. T., 1923, Nos. 70 and 71, in case of Walter G. Roland, to use of Robert P. Shick, v. Harry M. Albright, defendant, William A. Goodman, intervening defendant, and Norristown-Penn Trust Company, garnishee. Judgments affirmed.
Proceeding upon issues framed after judgments opened. Before CORSON, J., without a jury.
Judgments entered for defendants. Use-plaintiff appealed. Error assigned, among others, was order directing entry of judgment for defendants.
Robert P. Shick, propria persona with him T. Lane Bean, for appellant.
E. H. Deysher, with him A. H. Hendricks and Paul H. Price, for appellee.
Argued January 18, 1937.
This is an application to open judgments. After much legal maneuvering in State and Federal courts, the parties finally agreed to submit their controversy to Judge CORSON for trial by him without a jury. He concluded as follows: "1. That the District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania was a Court of competent jurisdiction and had jurisdiction to pass upon the validity of the claims of Robert P. Shick, represented by the present judgments, against the bankrupt estate of Harry M. Albright; 2. That the findings of such Court upon such claims are binding upon this Court in the present proceedings; 3. That the two notes here in question were given without any consideration passing either from Roland to Albright or from Shick to Roland; 4. That the notes in question were fraudulently entered; 5. That the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania found that the present use-plaintiff, Robert P. Shick, had no claim whatever against Harry M. Albright upon such notes; 6. That such finding makes the question of the claims of Robert P. Shick in the present proceeding res adjudicata and binding upon this Court in the present proceedings." On these conclusions the court entered judgments for defendants.
The judgments are affirmed on the conclusions quoted.