Hulse v. Wright
Ohio Supreme Court
In Chancery. The bill set forth that the defendant, a short time-before, purchased of the complainants, in Philadelphia, a quantity of merchandise, and soon afterwards became insolvent. That he was,, at the time of purchasing the goods, in failing circumstances, which he concealed.
Read the full summary
In Chancery. The bill set forth that the defendant, a short time-before, purchased of the complainants, in Philadelphia, a quantity of merchandise, and soon afterwards became insolvent. That he was,, at the time of purchasing the goods, in failing circumstances, which he concealed. That the complainant has called for piayment, and proposed a compromise for a jjart of his debt, or to take the goods,, which defendant refused, declaring that he would be able to pay if let alone; but that he intended first to payor secure his confidential creditors. The bill asserts that there is danger of a…
1Opinion of the CourtWright, J.
gave the opinion of the Court. The ease made in the bill is this: A man in failing circumstances, and in contemplation of insolvency, without disclosing his embarrassments, has purchased *goods of the complainants, upon time, which has not [62 expired. Having by this suppression of truth obtained the goods, he, in order to keep up his sinking credit, is selling them at great sacrifice, and is wasting his estate, by paying two or three per cent, a month interest, and moreover, threatens to transfer his whole property, to pay certain preferred debts, of creditors usually denominated…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Baker v. Roslyn Swim ClubSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1965
- Brolaskey v. McClainSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1870
- Caldwell v. HollerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1861
- Darrah v. BryantSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1867