Paul v. Kunz
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 260, Jan. T., 1899, by-defendant, from judgment of C. P. No. 4, Phila. Co., June T., 1894, No. 282, on verdict for plaintiff, in suit of Mickle C. Paul, trading as Paul Brothers, v. Anna Kunz. Issue to determine the validity of a judgment. Before Arnold, P. J. At the trial it appeared that in 1889, a retail business was started in Philadelphia under the name of A. Kunz.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 260, Jan. T., 1899, by-defendant, from judgment of C. P. No. 4, Phila. Co., June T., 1894, No. 282, on verdict for plaintiff, in suit of Mickle C. Paul, trading as Paul Brothers, v. Anna Kunz. Issue to determine the validity of a judgment. Before Arnold, P. J. At the trial it appeared that in 1889, a retail business was started in Philadelphia under the name of A. Kunz. Plaintiff testified that she had started this business with $1,000 which she had received from her father. The defendant contended that the business was really owned by the husband. In 1893, defendant’s husband…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mb. Justice Bbown,
This was a feigned issue to determine whether certain moneys, realized on a sheriff’s sale of personal property, belonged *210to Anna Kunz, the plaintiff in the execution under which it had been sold, or ought to be paid to Paul Brothers, attaching creditors of the defendant in the same, who claim that the execution issued by the appellant was fraudulent and void as to them. It is contended, on behalf of the appellant, that in 1889, she began to conduct business as a dealer in shoes, and continued the same until 1893 when she sold out to her husband, taking his…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Laginsky v. McColloughSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1924
- Carr v. FaganSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1924
- Rumsey v. ShawSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1904