Moore v. Dunn & Fell
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeals, Nos. 453 and 454, Jan. T., 1891, by James Wilkinson and James Dunn, et al., from orders of C. P. No. 4, Dec. T., 1890, No. 659, discharging rule on sheriff to pay money into court, and refusing petition for an issue. Petitions were filed by James Wilkinson and Dunn & Fell praying for an issue to determine whether S. M. Moore’s relations with James Dunn and C. H. Fell did not make him jointly liable with them to their firm creditors.
Read the full summary
Appeals, Nos. 453 and 454, Jan. T., 1891, by James Wilkinson and James Dunn, et al., from orders of C. P. No. 4, Dec. T., 1890, No. 659, discharging rule on sheriff to pay money into court, and refusing petition for an issue. Petitions were filed by James Wilkinson and Dunn & Fell praying for an issue to determine whether S. M. Moore’s relations with James Dunn and C. H. Fell did not make him jointly liable with them to their firm creditors. Rules were also taken by James Wilkinson and Dunn & Fell to show cause why the fund produced by the sheriff’s sale should not he paid into court and an…
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam,
The opinion of the learned judge of the court below covers the ground so fully that nothing remains to be added. We affirm the order discharging the rule to pay money into court, and to frame an issue, for the reasons given by him.
2Cited by12 opinions
- R.C.R. Services, Inc. v. Sciortino (In Re Sciortino)United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1990
- Sklaroff v. WeinerSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1964
- Knowles v. JacobsSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1897
- People's Savings Bank v. MosierSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1901
- Commonwealth v. PriceSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1900
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.