Kurner v. O'Neil
West Virginia Supreme Court
cited, Sto. Conf. L. 242; 2 Pars. Cont. § 576;.20 Ohio 545; 1 Oído ¡át. 267; Ohio St. 247; Code, e. 74, s. 2 ; 87 W. Va. 552. CCQ CO cited, 87 W. Va. 675 ; 26 Gratt. 927 ; Code, e. 74, s. 2 ; 25 W. Va. 185.
1Opinion of the Court
Bent, Judge:
The facts in this case are as follows, to wit: The firm O’Neil, Funk & Co., composed of W. B. O’Neil, Thomas Punk aud Charles Engeman, were in a failing and insolvent condition, and attachments had been and were being sued out against them. W. B. O’Neil was indebted to C. Muhleman & Co. in the sum of three hundred dollars and forty two cents, for merchandise used by the firm of O’Neil, Punk & Co. This account was assigned to Charles Muhle-man, who also had a large individual claim against the partners of the firm of O’Neil, Funk & Co. Charles Muhle-man, knowing the failing…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Guillander v. . HowellNew York Court of Appeals · 1866
- Wolf v. McGuginWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1893
- Darby & Co. v. GilliganWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1889
- Baer's Sons v. WilkinsonWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1891
3Cited by7 opinions
- First Nat. Bank of Cumberland v. ParsonsWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1896
- Johnson v. RileyWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1895
- H.O. Anderson, Inc. v. RoseWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1987
- Root-Tea-Na-Herb Co. v. RightmireWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1900
- Fogarty v. NealCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1923
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.