Eichenlaub v. Hall
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 11, July T., 1893, by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. Erie Co., May T., 18.91, No. 157, on verdict for defendant. Replevin for steam tug. Before Gunnison, P. J. At the trial it appeared that plaintiff and Frank L. Montgomery were partners in the fishing business, trading under the name of the Erie Fish Co. They owned in common the vessel in dispute.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 11, July T., 1893, by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. Erie Co., May T., 18.91, No. 157, on verdict for defendant. Replevin for steam tug. Before Gunnison, P. J. At the trial it appeared that plaintiff and Frank L. Montgomery were partners in the fishing business, trading under the name of the Erie Fish Co. They owned in common the vessel in dispute. On March 27, 1891, Montgomery sold and assigned to plaintiff all his interest in the partnership, and the property belonging to it. Four days before this sale, on March 23,1891, Montgomery, without the knowledge of his partner,…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mb. Justice Mitchell,
The learned judge below, conceding that if the question were between plaintiff and Montgomery it would have to go to the jury, wás of opinion that there was no sufficient evidence of knowledge or bad faith on the part of defendant, and therefore directed a verdict for him.
*204The case discloses a plain and very gross fraud on the part of Montgomery, and the use of Hall the defendant as the instrument for the perpetration of it. Under such circumstances the question of fact alwaj's arises whether the person made the instrument was so used with his knowledge and…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Lot Gardner's EstateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1894
- Banks' EstatePennsylvania Orphans' Court, Philadelphia County · 1963