Nesbitt v. Herbert
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 111, Oct. T., 1913, by defendants, from judgment of C. P. No. 3, Phila. Co., Dec. T., 1905, No. -3,327, on verdict for plaintiffs in case of C. S. Nesbitt and D. M. Stackhouse, trading as American Parquetry Floor Company, v. Willis A. - Herbert and Penn Building Company, Garnishee. Attachment execution on judgment obtained March 5, 1906, against Willis A. Herbert, with Louis H. Cohen and the Penn Building Company as garnishee.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 111, Oct. T., 1913, by defendants, from judgment of C. P. No. 3, Phila. Co., Dec. T., 1905, No. -3,327, on verdict for plaintiffs in case of C. S. Nesbitt and D. M. Stackhouse, trading as American Parquetry Floor Company, v. Willis A. - Herbert and Penn Building Company, Garnishee. Attachment execution on judgment obtained March 5, 1906, against Willis A. Herbert, with Louis H. Cohen and the Penn Building Company as garnishee. At the trial it appeared that on September 26, 1911, suit was brought by Louis A. Herbert & Son against the Penn Building Company, and the latter admitted a…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Orlady, J.,
The appellant presents a very persuasive argument on this record, and if it depended alone on our reading of the testimony and deciding the question, as one of fact, we might reach a different conclusion from that of the jury. However, the determining question was purely one of fact, and was fairly presented by the court, viz: “If you come to the conclusion that Willis A. Herbert and his son were not really partners, but that the partnership articles and the holding of himself and his son out to the world as partners was but a cover or sham to defeat his creditors, and…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Allen v. LineSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1899
- Cobb v. Metropolitan Life InsuranceSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1902