Billington v. Sweeting
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 60, July T., 1894, by plaintiff from order of C. P. No. 3, Phila. Co., June T., 1892, Nos. 1028, 975 and 976, dismissing exceptions to áuditor’s report. Exceptions to auditor’s report distributing the funds in court arising from the sheriff’s sale of the personal property of defendant. The facts appear by the opinion of the Supreme Court. Error assigned was in dismissing exceptions to auditor’s report.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Williams,
The contention of the appellant in the court below was that the judgment under which the wife of the defendant claimed the bulk of the fund in court was fraudulent. The facts shown by the report of the learned auditor are that Sweeting was conducting a large business in bicycles in the city of Philadelphia for some years prior to the 28th of July, 1892. Finding himself, as he says, unable to pay his debts, he disclosed his situation to his wife and her mother who lived with them, and after a day or two of consideration an attorney was consulted. The result was…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Wilson v. SilkmanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1881
- Reese v. ReeseSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1893
- Gicker's Administrators v. MartinSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1865
3Cited by7 opinions
- Peoples Savings & Dime Bank & Trust Co. v. ScottSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1931
- Cameron, SEC. of B. v. P. Bk. of MaytownSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1929
- Taylor v. PaulSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1898
- Guernsey v. FroudeSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1900
- Hertzler v. NisslySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1928
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.