Wilson v. Silkman
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Error to the Court of Common Pleas, of Lackawanna county: Of January Term 1881, No. 163. Feigned issue, wherein Wilson and others were plaintiffs and Catherine Silkman was defendant, to determino the validity of a judgment for $11,755.12, confessed by Daniel Silkman to William Shoemaker, in trust- for Catherine Silkman, his wife.
Read the full summary
Error to the Court of Common Pleas, of Lackawanna county: Of January Term 1881, No. 163. Feigned issue, wherein Wilson and others were plaintiffs and Catherine Silkman was defendant, to determino the validity of a judgment for $11,755.12, confessed by Daniel Silkman to William Shoemaker, in trust- for Catherine Silkman, his wife. Upon the trial, before Hand, A. L. J., the plaintiffs proved the following facts-: On June 4th 1878, Daniel Silkman confessed a judgment for $1000 to Almira and Sarah A. Silkman, which was the first lien upon his property. This judgment was originally entered in…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Gordon
On the 10th of June 1878 Daniel Silkman executed his judgment-note to William Shoemaker in the sum of $11,755.12 in *512trust for his wife, Catharine Silkman. On this note, judgment was entered on the 21st of November 1878. At the time of the execution of the note above mentioned, Silkman was a member of the firm of Silkman, Winton & Co., which firm was largely indebted, so largely, indeed, that it appears from the evidence it was unable fully to liquidate its obligations, in other words, it proved to be insolvent.
It appears, further, that on the 4th of June 1878, a judgment was éntered in the.…
2Cited by8 opinions
- Werle v. WerleSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1938
- Cameron, SEC. of B. v. P. Bk. of MaytownSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1929
- Waslee v. RossmanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1911
- Taylor v. PaulSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1898
- Liebendofer v. WilsonSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1954
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.