Legal Opinion

Fox v. Curtis

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided May 28, 1896No. Appeal, No. 229PublishedCited by 2 opinions

Appeal, No. 229, July T., 1895, by J. H. Curtis and E. H. Flick, two of the defendants, from decree of C. P. Blair Co., No. 239, in equity for the appointment of a receiver. Bill in equity for the appointment of a receiver and for an injunction. On motion for the continuance of a preliminary injunction, and rule for the appointment of a receiver* Bell, P. J., found the facts to be as follows : On July 12, 1895, Fox & Curtis, wholesale shoe dealers of Altoona, were insolvent.

Read the full summary

Appeal, No. 229, July T., 1895, by J. H. Curtis and E. H. Flick, two of the defendants, from decree of C. P. Blair Co., No. 239, in equity for the appointment of a receiver. Bill in equity for the appointment of a receiver and for an injunction. On motion for the continuance of a preliminary injunction, and rule for the appointment of a receiver* Bell, P. J., found the facts to be as follows : On July 12, 1895, Fox & Curtis, wholesale shoe dealers of Altoona, were insolvent. On that day Curtis, one of the partners, confessed judgment as follows: To Curtis, Jones & Co., $4,500; to S. M.…

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Fell,

George Fox and J. A. Curtis were partners in the wholesale shoe business. On July 12, 1895, Curtis confessed two judgments in the firm name, one for $4,500 and the other for *56$5,000, to the creditors of the partnership. Under executions issued upon these judgments the stock in trade was levied on and sold by the sheriff, realizing $4,600. On July 13, Curtis assigned the remaining property of the partnership, consisting of unpaid book accounts and outstanding claims, amounting to about $25,000, to E. H. Flick in trust for the two creditors to whom judgment had been…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Deckard v. CaseSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1836
  2. Watson v. BagaleySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1849
  3. Wallace & Krebs v. Wainwright & Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1878
  4. Chicago & Allegheny Oil & Mining Co. v. United States Petroleum Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1868
  5. Sloan v. MooreSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1860

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Hankin v. HankinSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1980
  2. McClain v. Pittsburg Stock ExchangeSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1908

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API