James B. Drew

This case involved a petition for a writ of prohibition filed by attorney Hymen Schlesinger against Judge Michael A. Musmanno of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County. During a trespass trial, the judge interrogated Schlesinger in open court about his past or present membership in the Communist Party and the Civil Rights Congress, declared him morally unfit to practice law or try cases when he refused to answer on jurisdictional grounds, and held him in contempt, including after proceedings continued despite a stay from the Supreme Court. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court vacated the judge's orders of May 24 and 29, 1951, made the rule absolute, and issued a writ of prohibition barring enforcement of the fitness determination or further contempt actions. The core reasoning was that the judge exceeded his jurisdiction in the underlying trial by conducting the inquiry and contempt proceedings, as the lawyer's refusal asserted a valid right rather than constituting punishable misconduct, and appellate courts must supervise to prevent abuse of authority while upholding due process requirements.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights

Louis Siskin purchased a taproom business from Irving and Jack Cohen after the sellers misrepresented the weekly gross receipts and net profits of the business. Upon discovering the fraud through investigation after taking possession, Siskin filed a bill in equity to rescind the contract. The trial court granted rescission, and the appellate court affirmed, concluding that Siskin acted within a reasonable time after the sale and had relied on the misrepresentations. The court reasoned that the two-month period before filing was justified given the time needed to learn the business, observe operations, and confirm the fraud through inquiries, and that statements made about paying a note did not constitute a waiver.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

The case involved Fidelity & Casualty Company seeking to dissolve a tenancy by the entireties in real property held by Andrew and Eva Kizis and to place a lien on it for a $75,000 judgment note obtained from the husband alone after he embezzled funds from his bank. The lower court dismissed the bill in equity, and the Supreme Court affirmed. The court found that Mrs. Kizis had contributed to the purchase price through jointly signed loans and her own funds spent on improvements, and that the plaintiff was barred by laches due to its delay in pursuing the claim from 1943 until 1946, during which Mrs. Kizis had sold other property and renovated the subject real estate in good faith without knowledge of her husband's misconduct.

propertyprocedure

The case involved the Commonwealth's condemnation of nearly two acres of undeveloped land owned by Graham Farm Land Co. for construction of the Penn-Lincoln Parkway, after a Board of Viewers awarded $10,800 and a jury on appeal awarded $18,000 plus detention damages totaling $20,790. The Commonwealth appealed, arguing that the trial court erred by excluding the corporation's 1946 capital stock tax return (which valued the relevant properties at $20,000) as evidence of the land's worth and by incorrectly instructing the jury that it was the sole judge of both law and facts. The court held that the tax return was admissible as the owner's own estimate of value because the confidentiality provision in Section 731 of the Fiscal Code does not bar its use in eminent domain proceedings, it was not a collateral attack on the return, and the jury instruction misstated the division between court and jury roles; these errors required reversal and a new trial.

propertyproceduretaxes

This case involved a plaintiff who slipped on a public sidewalk for an unexplained reason and fell into an uncovered grease pit located on adjacent property that was leased for use as a gasoline service station. The plaintiff sued the lessee and sublessee of the property (along with the owners as additional defendants) for negligence in failing to cover or protect the pit. At the close of the plaintiff's case, the trial court directed a verdict for all defendants, which the appellate court affirmed. The core reasoning was that the uncovered pit was not the proximate cause of the injury, as the plaintiff's independent act of slipping on the sidewalk was an unforeseeable intervening event, and precedents established that such remote conditions do not create liability when an unrelated slip or trip occurs on the public way.

torts & liabilityproperty

The case involved a dispute over whether funds in a bank account titled "Stanley Kata or Charles Kata, Brother" belonged to the estate of Stanley Kata or had been gifted to his brother Charles. The Orphans' Court surcharged Charles, the executor, for not including the $7,683.97 balance in the estate assets, and the Supreme Court affirmed. The court reasoned that opening the account created no presumption of a gift or tenancy in common with beneficial interest, Charles failed to prove any gift by clear evidence, and the transfer of the passbook did not constitute a valid delivery of a gift.

property