Bickel's Executors v. Fasig's Administrator
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Error to the Common Pleas of Berks county. This was an action of debt by Joseph Henry, administrator de bonis non with the will annexed of Daniel Fasig, deceased, against Richard Bickel and John M. Bickel, executors of Anthony Bickel, deceased, on a bond given by Anthony Bickel to Daniel Fasig, dated the 1st April 1822, conditioned for the payment of $1200 with interest, on the 1st April 1823. On this bond, were various endorsements of the payment of interest, between the…
Read the full summary
Error to the Common Pleas of Berks county. This was an action of debt by Joseph Henry, administrator de bonis non with the will annexed of Daniel Fasig, deceased, against Richard Bickel and John M. Bickel, executors of Anthony Bickel, deceased, on a bond given by Anthony Bickel to Daniel Fasig, dated the 1st April 1822, conditioned for the payment of $1200 with interest, on the 1st April 1823. On this bond, were various endorsements of the payment of interest, between the years 1823 and 1845. Daniel Fasig, by his will proved the 27th April 1846, constituted his only child, Adam Fasig, his…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Woodward, J.
The evidence proved that the witness George Roland had been indicted and convicted, with one Meyer Seigle, for a conspiracy to cheat and defraud creditors.
Did this disqualify him as a witness ? In other words, is conspiracy to defraud creditors an infamous offence ?
The usual distribution of infamous offences is, into treason, felony, and the crimen falsi; but this latter classification is very imperfectly defined in our law. Mr. Greenleaf tells us, vol. 1, § 373, that in the Roman law — from which we have borrowed the term — it included not…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Palmer v. Cedar Rapids & Marion Railway Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1901
- Brown v. McCreightSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1898
- Pitts v. Lehmer, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Dauphin County1926