432 Pa. 117 | Pa. | 1968
Opinion
This is an appeal by the plaintiffs from the decree of the Court of Common Pleas No. 3 of Philadelphia
Inasmuch as, contrary to the rules of this Court, neither enumerated findings of fact nor an adjudication was made by the Chancellor at the time he rendered his decree nisi, there were no findings which the court en banc could affirm. The normal standard of review in an equity proceeding that the findings of a Chancellor, affirmed by a court en banc, have the effect of a jury verdict and, if based on sufficient evidence, will not be disturbed on appeal, is thus inapplicable here. We must make an independent review of the record. Idell v. Falcone, 427 Pa. 472, 235 A. 2d 394 (1967).
Briefly, plaintiffs charge all three defendants with fraud.
Each party to bear own costs.
The conspiracy, embezzlement, and violation of a fiduciary relationship charges can all be enveloped within the fraud charge, and the parties have so treated them.
It is clear to us that the intent of the parties was that Ostroff receive 5% of the issued stock rather than 5% of the total authorized stock.
The two checks which we are convinced were handled in this way were those payable to Jack Grossman for $200 and to Jack Richman for $45.