Vowinkle v. W. W. Johnston & Co.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
October Term, 1881, No. 153, W. D., before Gordon, Oh. J., Panson, Sterrett, Green, and Williams, The material facts of the case are as follows: Charles Vowinlde, the husband of Pauline Vowinlde, plaintiff in the feigned issue, was associated with Frederick Vowinkle as a partner in the wholesale liquor trade in Pittsburgh.
Read the full summary
October Term, 1881, No. 153, W. D., before Gordon, Oh. J., Panson, Sterrett, Green, and Williams, The material facts of the case are as follows: Charles Vowinlde, the husband of Pauline Vowinlde, plaintiff in the feigned issue, was associated with Frederick Vowinkle as a partner in the wholesale liquor trade in Pittsburgh. The latter withdrew from the firm and Charles gave him certain promissory notes amounting in the aggregate to $15,000. Frederick Vowinkle subsequently indorsed notes for Charles and took a judgment note from him for $20,000, together with anagreement in writing that in case…
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam :
The deed of trust in this case was a mere sham, and worthless. Mrs. Vowinkle paid nothing for the goods in question; and her husband’s note to Streim, was, as against her, void. The transaction was, in fact and in law, between the husband and Streim; and the trust but a flimsy cover that was good for nothing as to creditors.
The judgment is affirmed.
2Cited by1 opinion
- Backer v. MeyerU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Arkansas · 1890