Marion D. Patterson

The case involved Frank S. Linkowski's conviction for the voluntary manslaughter of Frank Zabczyk following a fight at a private club in 1947, where the victim was shot in the back through an open window. The defendant appealed the denial of his motions for arrest of judgment and a new trial, arguing insufficient circumstantial evidence, improper allowance of surprise cross-examination of witnesses, and newly discovered evidence that the Commonwealth's ballistics expert had tampered with test cartridges. The court affirmed the judgment and sentence, holding that the evidence of motive, opportunity, a matching eyewitness description, and uncontradicted ballistics testimony was sufficient to support the jury's verdict beyond a reasonable doubt. It further found no error in the evidentiary ruling and determined that the modification of a test cartridge was a legitimate technique rather than tampering, with any challenge amounting only to impeachment evidence that did not justify a new trial.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a wrongful death action brought by Helen Esposito, widow of Domenick Esposito, against the Philadelphia Transportation Company after her husband was killed when his automobile collided with a streetcar at an industrial highway crossing equipped with automatic warning lights and signs. The trial court granted the company's request for binding instructions and directed a verdict in its favor, which the Supreme Court affirmed after refusing a new trial. The court held that the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, showed the motorman may have been negligent but did not establish wanton misconduct, while the deceased's conduct in driving past the flashing red lights and warning signs at high speed without stopping demonstrated contributory negligence that barred recovery as a matter of law under precedents involving the same crossing.

torts & liability

The case involved two police officers from the Borough of Shenandoah who were furloughed in violation of seniority requirements under the Act of May 4, 1927, as amended, and who sought reinstatement and back pay through mandamus actions. The court affirmed the lower court's decision to grant peremptory writs of mandamus ordering their reinstatement and payment of back salary. The core reasoning was that the statute explicitly provides for hearings before the Civil Service Commission only in cases of suspension, removal, or reduction in rank, but not for furloughs due to economic reasons, and courts cannot add language to the clear statutory text to require such hearings.

labor & employmentprocedure

Antonio Gidaro was convicted by a jury of first-degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment for shooting and killing Michael Matzura on December 25, 1947, following an argument over a car blocking a garage entrance. Gidaro appealed, contending that the trial court erred by admitting daytime photographs of the crime scene and by refusing to instruct the jury that the evidence was insufficient to prove specific intent to kill beyond a reasonable doubt. The court determined that the photographs were properly admitted only to illustrate the general location and permanent features, with appropriate limiting instructions given to the jury regarding their timing and purpose. It further held that evidence of the unprovoked shots fired at the victim's back from close range, striking a vital area and causing death by severing the aorta, supported the jury's finding of intent to kill. The judgment and sentence were affirmed.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved an appeal by the Commonwealth from a decree of the Orphans’ Court of Allegheny County that excluded four savings accounts totaling $33,606.94 from the estate of Anna T. Dean for purposes of transfer inheritance tax under the Act of June 20, 1919. The accounts stood in the decedent’s name at her death but were claimed by her son and executor, John J. Dean, as his own property; the court below found after hearing that the accounts belonged to him based on family testimony, account records, and other evidence showing the funds were his earnings deposited for safekeeping. The Supreme Court affirmed the decree, holding that the evidence was sufficient to overcome the presumption of the decedent’s ownership even though the Commonwealth did not challenge the factual findings themselves. The court distinguished contrary authority and rejected an evidentiary challenge to a family disclaimer letter as properly excluded by the trial court.

taxesproperty

This case was a personal injury action in which the plaintiff sought damages after falling on ice and snow on a sidewalk adjacent to a building in Pittsburgh. The trial court entered a compulsory nonsuit at the close of the plaintiff's evidence, which the court en banc refused to remove, and the appellate court affirmed that decision. The court held that proof of an accumulation of ice and snow on the sidewalk is insufficient for liability without evidence that the dangerous condition was the actual cause of the fall. The plaintiff's own testimony indicated he began slipping on the crosswalk before reaching the sidewalk and failed to establish that the sidewalk accumulation caused his loss of balance. Under established precedent, the plaintiff must prove both an unreasonable obstruction with notice to the property owner and causation, which was not met here.

torts & liabilityprocedure

In this trespass action, traffic policeman Martin J. Tanner sought damages for injuries sustained when he was struck by a tractor-trailer operated by an employee of Pennsylvania Truck Lines, Inc., while directing traffic at the Liberty Tubes in Pittsburgh; Kraft Foods Company was added as an additional defendant. The trial court directed a verdict for the additional defendant, the jury awarded Tanner $15,000 against Pennsylvania Truck Lines, and the court granted a new trial unless Tanner accepted a remittitur reducing the verdict to $12,000, which he did. On appeal, the sole issue was whether the trial court erred in denying the defendant's motion for judgment non obstante veredicto. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the judgment, holding that the evidence, viewed favorably to the plaintiff, showed the driver was aware of Tanner's position between the vehicles, felt uneasy about moving forward due to insufficient clearance, and proceeded anyway without adequate warning, supporting a finding of negligence or reckless disregard that could overcome any contributory negligence. The court distinguished prior cases and noted that officers performing duties on the highway are judged by a more liberal standard than ordinary pedestrians.

torts & liability

In Dayen v. Penn Bus Co., bus passengers sued the bus company for injuries from a collision at an intersection with a truck, and the bus company brought the truck driver in as an additional defendant. The jury awarded damages against the bus company but found for the truck driver. On appeal, the bus company challenged the denial of a new trial, arguing error in the jury instructions on a through-highway driver's duty of care and that the verdicts were against the weight of the evidence. The court affirmed, ruling that the instructions properly reflected the qualified right-of-way and the heightened standard for common carriers, and that conflicting testimony left the outcome to the jury.

torts & liability

The case concerned an appeal by the City of New Castle from a lower court order approving the sale of four parcels of tax-delinquent land by Lawrence County Commissioners to the Lawrence Farm Bureau Cooperative Association for $6,650 after competitive bidding. The City had excepted to the sale, claiming prior title through earlier tax sales and authority to acquire the land for playground use at its lower bid of $6,644.04. The court held that amendments to the Act of 1937 permitted the County to petition for private sale approval and allowed any interested taxing authority to participate, and that the sale price exceeded all taxes, penalties, interest, and costs with no demonstrated advantage to all taxing authorities from a lower sale to the City. It therefore affirmed the decree directing conveyance to the Association.

propertytaxesprocedure

This case was a wrongful death and survival action brought by the widow of a pedestrian killed after being struck by a car at a Pennsylvania intersection. The jury returned a verdict for the defendant driver, the trial court denied a motion for new trial, and judgment was entered for the defendant. On appeal, the court affirmed, ruling that the evidence did not support a finding of reckless or wanton misconduct by the driver and that the question of ordinary negligence versus sudden dart-out by the pedestrian was properly left to the jury under the instructions given. The only testimony indicated the driver was traveling at a lawful speed with headlights on and did not see the decedent until it was too late to stop.

torts & liability

The case involved a dispute over funds in a joint savings account created by William B. Lenhart shortly before his death, with his brother Harry Lee Lenhart and nephew Robert Lenhart as joint tenants with right of survivorship. Mabel F. Snoder, the decedent's niece, filed a bill in equity seeking to establish a trust in the funds for the benefit of the estate and compel an accounting, arguing that a confidential relationship existed that shifted the burden to the defendants. The lower court dismissed the bill after a hearing, finding no such relationship and that the account creation was voluntary. On appeal, the court affirmed the decree, holding that the evidence did not establish a confidential relation and that the signed application created a presumption of voluntariness that was unrebutted.

propertyprocedure

This case involves a personal injury claim where Mrs. Falen fell into an opening after stepping onto a retaining wall that she assumed marked the edge of a sidewalk, in conditions of semi-darkness near the defendant's premises. The dissenting opinion argues that the majority's decision in favor of the plaintiffs is unsupported by the facts or Pennsylvania law on contributory negligence. The core reasoning relies on the plaintiff's own testimony, in which she admitted she did not look, wait, or use her senses of sight or touch before stepping, but instead proceeded based solely on her assumption about the wall's appearance, consistent with precedents like Bailey v. Alexander Realty Co. and Bartek v. Grossman that hold such conduct negligent as a matter of law. The dissent concludes that judgments should be reversed and entered for the defendant notwithstanding the verdict.

torts & liability

This case involved a daughter's suit against her mother seeking specific performance of an alleged oral contract to sell a large Pennsylvania farm known as River Ridge Farm. After an initial dismissal was reversed on appeal, the daughter amended her bill to allege the mother's subsequent oral admissions and promises to perform, along with the daughter's sale of securities and tenders of the purchase price in reliance. The trial court dismissed the amended bill on preliminary objections, and the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania affirmed, holding that the averments were insufficient to remove the oral agreement from the Statute of Frauds because there was no showing of exclusive possession and valuable improvements by the buyer or other equities that would make specific performance the only just remedy. The court further ruled that the Statute of Frauds defense could properly be raised by preliminary objections in equity and that the denial of a deposition request was immaterial given the pleading deficiencies.

propertyprocedure

In Commonwealth v. Givens, John William Givens appealed from convictions of first-degree murder and death sentences after pleading guilty to killing two elderly coworkers on a Pennsylvania farm in 1947 following arguments, using a hatchet and other means, robbing them, and fleeing the state for over a year. The court independently reviewed the record under the Act of 1870 and confirmed the murders qualified as first-degree, while noting Givens was found legally sane and competent by appointed commissions. The sole issue was the trial court's choice of the death penalty over life imprisonment under the 1939 statute granting discretion in such cases; the Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the lower court had judicially exercised its discretion after weighing all mitigating evidence including the defendant's background, mental type, and emotional instability, without overlooking facts or erring in law.

criminal law

This case concerned charges by the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board that Lester Frank's package delivery business engaged in unfair labor practices under the state Labor Relations Act by interfering with union activities. The lower court set aside most of the Board's order for lack of substantial evidence but allowed limited bargaining requirements. On appeal, the key issue was whether the state Board retained jurisdiction, given evidence that a substantial part of the business involved interstate shipments of meat under federal certificates from the Interstate Commerce Commission. The court reasoned that under precedents like Pittsburgh Railways and Bethlehem Steel, federal authority under the National Labor Relations Act preempts state power in interstate commerce cases, so it remanded for findings on whether Frank's operations qualified as interstate commerce.

labor & employmentfederal powerbusiness & regulatory

The case involved buyers seeking specific performance of a March 1946 contract to purchase real estate owned by a husband and wife as tenants by the entirety, where the agreement was signed only by the husband. The court affirmed the decree denying specific performance, holding that the wife was not bound by the contract. The core reasoning was that the wife had not signed the agreement or given written authority to her husband, no agency is presumed from the marital relationship for conveying property held by the entireties, the Statute of Frauds bars enforcement without such authority, and the facts did not support equitable estoppel against the wife.

propertyfamily law

This case involved a pedestrian struck and killed by a trolley car operated by the defendant while crossing Market Street in Philadelphia under a favorable traffic signal. The dissenting opinion contends that the trial court erred in entering judgment for the plaintiff because the decedent was contributorily negligent as a matter of law. Under longstanding Pennsylvania precedent, a pedestrian has an absolute duty to look for approaching trolleys immediately before stepping onto the tracks, and a green light provides only qualified permission that does not relieve this obligation. The dissent reasons that the plaintiff's own evidence showed the decedent either failed to look or saw the trolley yet proceeded anyway when it was only feet away, precluding any presumption of due care and requiring judgment for the defendant.

torts & liability

This case involved an appeal from an order regarding the will of Annie M. Huston, who died without children in 1947 and directed in her will and codicils that her residuary estate, including the proceeds from selling the farm where she lived, be distributed among named nephews and nieces. The testatrix owned only a one-third interest in the farm, with the other two-thirds passing to the same relatives under her father's earlier will; the dispute centered on whether four of the beneficiaries must elect between taking their shares of the farm under the father's will and receiving legacies under Huston's will. The court held that no election was required, affirming the lower court's order. Its reasoning was that when a testator holds only a partial interest in property, the will is construed to dispose only of that interest unless a contrary intent is clearly stated, and here the language did not clearly attempt to devise the entire farm or put beneficiaries to an election.

propertyfamily law

This case involved an appeal from the Orphans’ Court of McKean County concerning a widow’s challenge to an antenuptial agreement she signed before marrying a wealthy widower. The agreement provided her with $50,000 in bonds in exchange for waiving all rights to his estate, including dower, widow, and heir rights under the Intestate Act of 1917. The court affirmed the lower decree upholding the agreement and denying her petition to appoint appraisers for a $5,000 statutory share, reasoning that the husband had disclosed his net worth of over $1.1 million in the contract preamble, the $50,000 provision was reasonable relative to her prior financial situation as a beauty shop operator, and her acknowledgment of receipt in the signed agreement prevented her from later denying it after the husband’s death two weeks into the marriage.

family lawproperty

The case concerned homeowners who sought to pay off a mortgage early pursuant to a written agreement with the original mortgagees allowing prepayment at any time. After the mortgage was assigned to a new holder, the assignee refused a tender of the remaining principal plus interest, relying on a declaration of no set-off executed by the homeowners. The trial court ordered the mortgage satisfied upon payment of the balance, interest to the tender date, and costs, and the appellate court affirmed. The core reasoning was that the assignee was on inquiry notice of the prepayment right because of statements made at settlement, so the declaration of no set-off did not create an estoppel against the homeowners' equitable right to prepay.

propertyprocedure