Opinion

Palmer K. Schreiber v. Christopher G. Kellogg

  • 50 F.3d 264
  • 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 5326
  • 1995 WL 113626
Court
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Filed
Mar 17, 1995
Status
Published
Author
Lewis
On the bench
Scirica, Lewis, Roney
Cited by
12 cases

referring to Pennsylvania law

How later courts described this case

  • referring to Pennsylvania law

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

LEWIS, Circuit Judge,

concurring.

I would have found that the Wanamaker will’s spendthrift protection did not protect from attachment Kellogg’s interest in 'the Wanamaker trust. Furthermore, I am somewhat skeptical about whether the courts of Pennsylvania would adopt section 157(e) of the Restatement (Second) of Trusts. However, the majority provides a well-reasoned and defensible rationale with respect to both of its conclusions, and the issues being far from clear, I concur. On remand Schreiber may receive at least a portion of the money Kellogg owes him, and I am sure that if we are wrong about section 157(c), the courts of Pennsylvania will let us know in due course.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.