Furbush v. Greene & Co.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Error to tbe Court of Common Pleas, No. 8, of Philadelphia county: Of July Term, 1884, No. 40. Attachment sur judgment, by Edward A. Greene and Eugene Yan Loan, trading, as E. A. Green & Co., against Josiah B. Seybert, defendant, and Merrill A. Furbush and Charles A. Furbush, trading as M. A. Furbush- & Son, garnishees. As to the defendant and Charles A. Furbush, the sheriff returned nihil habet. Plea, by Merrill A. Furbush, nulla bona.
Read the full summary
Error to tbe Court of Common Pleas, No. 8, of Philadelphia county: Of July Term, 1884, No. 40. Attachment sur judgment, by Edward A. Greene and Eugene Yan Loan, trading, as E. A. Green & Co., against Josiah B. Seybert, defendant, and Merrill A. Furbush and Charles A. Furbush, trading as M. A. Furbush- & Son, garnishees. As to the defendant and Charles A. Furbush, the sheriff returned nihil habet. Plea, by Merrill A. Furbush, nulla bona. Upon the trial the following facts appeared: On October 19th, 1881, Josiah B. Seybert confessed judgments to M. A. Furbush & Son to the amount of $22,701.89,…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Gordon
We are inclined to the opinion that the answer of the court below to the defendant’s second point was erroneous in that the jury was instructed that the sheriff’s sale was fictitious and void if a large quantity of the goods, seized as the property of Seybert, was sold in a lump. Whilst the point itself could not be sustained, and was, therefore, properly refused, yet the statement as above set forth, and which was made part of the answer, was not, as we think, warranted by the facts of this case. The charge is in effect that the sale of a large quantity of goods in one lot or parcel is prima…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Grim v. ReinboldSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1892