Appeal, No. 52, Jan. T., 1906, by defendant, from decree of C. P. York Co., Aug. T., 1905, on bill in equity in case of Simeon M. Jones v. Thomas Weir.

Bill in equity to dissolve a partnership and for a receiver. See Jones v. Weir, 213 Pa. 135.

From the record it appeared that defendant bought the York Candy Company’s factory for $51,000 worth of the American Stogie Company’s stock at par, paying no cash, but giving a mortgage on Altoona property for $20,000. Weir induced Jones to agree to pay $25,500 for a half interest in this property, and enter into partnership and pay $5,000 more towards working capital, upon the statement that he, Weir, had paid the $51,000 in cash. Upon discovering the deception Jones filed his bill, asking for rescission of the contract, dissolution of the partnership, injunction, and the appointment of a receiver until final accounting.

The court entered a decree rescinding the contract of partnership and appointing a receiver.

No assignments of error were filed, but there was printed in the appellant’s paper-book under the caption, “ Brief Statement of Errors,” the following :

A brief statement of errors alleged by the defendant to have been made by the order and decree of the court in the above-named case (which order and decree were filed January 15, 1906), and which the defendant appeals from.

1. The learned court erred in appointing a receiver and granting and continuing an injunction against the defendant, as the evidence adduced was insufficient in law and iri fact to warrant the appointment of a receiver or the granting of an injunction.

2. The learned court erred in not passing upon the exceptions filed to Ms finding of facts and law separately.

3. The learned court erred in dismissing the defendant’s exceptions to the court’s findings of facts and conclusions of law, and the admission and rejection of evidence.

J. The learned court erred in his reasons stated for dismissing the exceptions filed by the defendant, as follows : “ The exceptions were argued at length before us on Monday, January 8, 1906. We have not been convinced of any error committed by the court as set out in either of said exceptions. As to the 58th exception, it may be said in support of the court’s ruling that it is not a material question under the pleadings whether the plant was worth more or less than the amount of the mortgage and the price named, $51,000, in all $70,000 to $80,000, as the defendant offered to prove, but whether or not the signature of the plaintiff was obtained tw false and fraudulent representations. The real value of the plant is not in issue, and the evidence therefore was properly excluded.”

…

Citation profile

How this case has been treated — in progress