Legal Opinion

Smith v. Arrell

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided March 18, 1957No. Appeal, 94PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Cohen,

This is a contest between a wife and a creditor of her husband. The Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County applied section 7 of the Uniform Fraudulent Conveyance Act and held a judgment confessed by the husband in favor of the wife fraudulent and void as to the creditor.

Section 7 provides as follows: “Every . . . obligation incurred with actual intent, as distinguished from intent presumed in law, to hinder, delay, or defraud either present or future creditors, is fraudulent as to both present and future creditors.” Act of May 21, 1921, P. L. 1045, §7; 39 P.S.…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Peoples Savings & Dime Bank & Trust Co. v. ScottSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1931
  2. Iscovitz v. FildermanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1939
  3. Queen-Favorite B. & L. Ass'n v. BursteinSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1932
  4. Young EstateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1943
  5. Eaves v. SnyderSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1951

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. First National Bank v. HoffinesSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1968
  2. Miami National Bank v. WillensSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1963
  3. United States v. Howard I. Green Mary Green Roylan Finance Ernestine Woodmansee Howard I. Green Mary GreenCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2000
  4. Butler County v. BrockerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1974
  5. Winter v. WelkerDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1959

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API