Dubbs v. Finley
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Error to the Common Pleas of Schuylkill county. April 27, 28. — But one point was argued here, viz., whethe» the court were right in ruling a conveyance by Hippie, who was insolvent at the time, was fraudulent as to creditors. The conveyance was “ as well for and in consideration of the assumption of the proportional part of the mortgage debt hereinafter named, as for, &c.”
Read the full summary
Error to the Common Pleas of Schuylkill county. April 27, 28. — But one point was argued here, viz., whethe» the court were right in ruling a conveyance by Hippie, who was insolvent at the time, was fraudulent as to creditors. The conveyance was “ as well for and in consideration of the assumption of the proportional part of the mortgage debt hereinafter named, as for, &c.” The mortgage covered other property, and the plaintiff in error, as the purchaser under the above deed, claimed the surplus of the proceeds of a sheriff’s sale. On the trial of a feigned issue, the court instructed the…
1Opinion of the CourtSergeant, J.
— This case differs from United States v. Mertz, 2 Watts, 406, on which the court below ruled it. For here the grantee, when he took the property, did so expressly on his written assumption of the proportional part of the mortgage debt, and also stipulated by the same instrument, that it should be subject to such proportional part, amounting to the sum of $2040, which he assumed thereby and agreed to pay. This undertaking would make him liable for the amount in a proceeding against him by Hippie. Whether covenant would be the proper form of action, where it appears that he had not executed…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- United States v. MertzSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1834