Fassit v. Phillips
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
IN EQUITY. This cause came before the Court on a motion to dissolve an injunction, which had been granted on the filing of a bill by James Fassit, Theodore L. Fassit and Alfred Fassit, co -partners in trade, as James Fassit & Co., against Isaac Phillips, Joseph L. Moss, Joseph Mora Moss and David Samuel.
Read the full summary
IN EQUITY. This cause came before the Court on a motion to dissolve an injunction, which had been granted on the filing of a bill by James Fassit, Theodore L. Fassit and Alfred Fassit, co -partners in trade, as James Fassit & Co., against Isaac Phillips, Joseph L. Moss, Joseph Mora Moss and David Samuel. The bill set forth that the complainants had been in the habit of transacting business with Isaac Phillips and Joseph L. Moss, who traded in the City of Philadelphia under the firm of R. & I. Phillips ; that the said R. & I. Phillips, in consequence of their mutual dealings and business…
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam. —
The charge of actual fraud is repelled by the answer; and an implication of legal fraud cannot be.raised from the admitted fact, that the house was left out of the assignment. In Thomas v. Jenhs, a substantial benefit was reserved ; but here there was nothing of the sort. The legal title, incumbered as it is sworn to be, beyond the fee simple value, is a caput mortuum, which though it might have swelled the apparent amount of the schedule, could have held out but a deceptive promise to the creditors. It would therefore be useless, and perhaps mischievous, to suspend the execution…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Garrison v. MonaghanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1859
- In re the Accounts of WilsonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1846