Ryon v. Wynkoop

23 A. 1002, 148 Pa. 188, 1892 Pa. LEXIS 944
CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania
DecidedMarch 28, 1892
DocketAppeal, No. 300
StatusPublished

This text of 23 A. 1002 (Ryon v. Wynkoop) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Ryon v. Wynkoop, 23 A. 1002, 148 Pa. 188, 1892 Pa. LEXIS 944 (Pa. 1892).

Opinion

Per Curiam,

This was an attachment execution, in which Thomas Grant and Henry Weiderhold were made garnishees of John E. Wynkoop. The garnishees pleaded nulla bona, and went to trial upon that issue. The plaintiff alleged that Wynkoop, the defendant in the attachment, had entered into a partnership with the garnishees for paving certain streets in the city of Mexico; that the paving having been finished, and the partnership [192]*192closed, there was a certain amount of profits to be divided, and that the sum of $1,200 was admitted to be due from the garnishees to John E. Wynkoop. It is very plain that partnership transactions cannot be settled upon an attachment execution. If, however, the affairs of the partnership have been settled, and an admitted balance is due from one partner to another, it may be attached as in other cases. The learned judge below fairly left it to the jury to find, first, whether Wynkoop was a partner; and, second, whether there was a clear admission of an indebtedness due to him from the other partners. The jury have found against the plaintiff upon both these facts; and, as they were properly submitted, we cannot disturb the judgment.

Judgment affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
23 A. 1002, 148 Pa. 188, 1892 Pa. LEXIS 944, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ryon-v-wynkoop-pa-1892.