Maffet v. Ijams
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne county: Of January Term 1882, No. 44. Assumpsit, by J. P. Ijams against William E. Maffet, upon a written contract, whereby Maffet agreed to provide for certain judgments due Ijams, if the latter would refrain from bidding' at a sheriff’s sale of certain property upon which said judgments were liens.
Read the full summary
Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne county: Of January Term 1882, No. 44. Assumpsit, by J. P. Ijams against William E. Maffet, upon a written contract, whereby Maffet agreed to provide for certain judgments due Ijams, if the latter would refrain from bidding' at a sheriff’s sale of certain property upon which said judgments were liens. At the trial, before Eice, P. J., the following facts appeared: E. C. Smith was the owner of a number of lots of ground in Wilkes-Barre which were encumbered with mortgages. Subsequent to the mortgages, fourteen judgments were entered against Smith,…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered
Pee Cueiam.
It is true, a contract not to bid at a sheriff’s sale so as to defraud the defendant in the execution, or his creditors, will be declared void. Here, however, there was evidence which justified submitting to the jury that the defendant in the execution; and all 1ns creditors affected by the sale, had notice of the arrangement between the parties in this case. The verdict removes all pretext that any person interested in the sale was defrauded. The plaintiff in error cannot now invoke the rule that under many circumstances his contract might…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Barton v. BensonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1889