Display Mode
Dark
Dark
Light
Light
Theme Cover
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Search History
No search history
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Media
Term
Opinion Writer
Direction
Field

Winebrenner v. Forney

• 1902 • 189 U.S. 148 • Fuller Court
The U.S. Supreme Court case Winebrenner v. Forney in 1902 revolved around a dispute over the ownership of certain bonds and stocks that were part of an estate. The plaintiff, Winebrenner, was the executor of his father's will which included these assets. However, they had been transferred to another party (Forney) before the death of Winebrenner’s father under circumstances that raised questions about their rightful ownership. Winebrenner sued for possession claiming that this transfer was...Open Case
Score:
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms
1 results found
Become a Sponsor
Support Us
Feedback: We can do better!

Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Chief Fuller Court
Term: 1902
Docket: 409
189 U.S. 148
23 S. Ct. 590
47 L. Ed. 754
1903 U.S. LEXIS 1338
Argued: Mar 06, 1903

Winebrenner v. Forney

  • Pro
  • Pro
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

The U.S. Supreme Court case Winebrenner v. Forney in 1902 revolved around a dispute over the ownership of certain bonds and stocks that were part of an estate. The plaintiff, Winebrenner, was the executor of his father's will which included these assets. However, they had been transferred to another party (Forney) before the death of Winebrenner’s father under circumstances that raised questions about their rightful ownership. Winebrenner sued for possession claiming that this transfer was fraudulent and designed to prevent him from fulfilling his duties as executor by distributing them among legitimate heirs according to the terms set out in his father's will. The court ruled against Winebrenner stating there wasn't sufficient evidence presented proving fraud on Forney’s part or showing any wrongdoing during the transfer process. Furthermore, it held that even if such evidence existed it would not necessarily invalidate Forney’s claim because he could still be considered a bona fide purchaser - someone who buys something without knowledge of any defects in its title.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

The dissenting opinion in the Winebrenner v. Forney case argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling, which found Mr. Winebrenner guilty of fraudulently obtaining money from Mrs. Forney, was incorrect and unjustified by law or evidence presented during trial proceedings. The dissenting justices believed that there was insufficient proof to establish beyond reasonable doubt that Mr. Winebrenner had intentionally deceived Mrs.Forney with fraudulent intent when he obtained funds from her under false pretenses regarding his financial status and business prospects. They contended that while it may have been proven that he misrepresented facts about his financial situation, this alone did not constitute fraud unless it could be shown conclusively that these misrepresentations were made deliberately with an intention to deceive and defraud her for personal gain - something they felt was not adequately demonstrated during the course of trial proceedings.

Opinion written by Justice DJBrewer
Decided: Apr 06, 1903
PDF viewer is not available.
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
AI Assist
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
PDF viewer is not available.
Oral Transcripts
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Ask Etalia.ai
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Audio of Oral Arguments
Free Trial!
Become a Sponsor

Support Us
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms