Dicken v. Hays
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Argued October 25, 1886, before Gordon, Trunkey, Sterrett, Green, and Clark, JJ. October Term, 1886, No. 13, W. D. Error to Common Pleas No. 1 of Allegheny County to review a judgment for the plaintiff on points reserved in an attachment sur judgment. The facts appear by the opinion of the court below, by Collier, J., on the reserved questions of law. The court charged the jury as follows: “This case will turn generally on questions of law, and they are not for you.
Read the full summary
Argued October 25, 1886, before Gordon, Trunkey, Sterrett, Green, and Clark, JJ. October Term, 1886, No. 13, W. D. Error to Common Pleas No. 1 of Allegheny County to review a judgment for the plaintiff on points reserved in an attachment sur judgment. The facts appear by the opinion of the court below, by Collier, J., on the reserved questions of law. The court charged the jury as follows: “This case will turn generally on questions of law, and they are not for you. The view we have of the case for the present is that the plaintiff, under the facts he has given in evidence, is entitled to a…
1Per curiam
The decree on Hays’ bill of August 16, 1880, established, beyond controversy, that the conveyance by Dickson to Dicken, of the 16 lots in Mifflin township, was fraudulent and void as to Dickson’s creditors, of whom Hays was one. It follows that it was all the same whether Dicken held the lots or the money derived from their sales. In either case, for the purposes of the creditors, either or both were the property of Dickson, and were liable to execution or attachment.
As to the decree, and the statute of limitations, the court well held that the plaintiff was concluded by neither.
Judgment…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Werckley v. New Orleans Homesite Co.Louisiana Court of Appeal · 1920