Billingsley v. White & Sparhawk
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Fayette county: No. 127, to October and November Term 1868. This was an issue of June Term 1868, under the Sheriff’s Interpleader Act, in which Jacob D. Billingsley was plaintiff, and John P. White and John Sparhawk, trading as White k Spar-hawk, were defendants.
Read the full summary
Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Fayette county: No. 127, to October and November Term 1868. This was an issue of June Term 1868, under the Sheriff’s Interpleader Act, in which Jacob D. Billingsley was plaintiff, and John P. White and John Sparhawk, trading as White k Spar-hawk, were defendants. On the 7th of October 1867, White k Sparhawk obtained a judgment for $166.65, against James Billingsley and Wilson Patterson, trading as Billingsley k Patterson, on which, in December following, they issued execution and levied on the goods in controversy in this issue. The goods were claimed by…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered, January 4th 1869, by
Williams, J.
¡An actual and continued change of possession is essential to the validity of a voluntary sale of chattels as against creditors. If the possession is retained by the vendor, or if the delivery is merely formal and constructive, the sale will be regarded as fraudulent in law, without reference to the intent of the parties. But if there has been an actual and continued change of possession, the court cannot pronounce the sale fraudulent in law, but must leave the jury, whose province it is, to determine whether or not it is…
2Cited by7 opinions
- Weller v. MeederSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1896
- Hastings v. Sproul & HastingsSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1899
- Groff v. CooperSuperior Court of Delaware · 1880
- Gattle Bros. v. KrempSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1898
- Hoffman v. OwensNevada Supreme Court · 1909
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.