Bell v. Throop

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Bell v. Throop

21 A. 408, 140 Pa. 641, 1891 Pa. LEXIS 885

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedMarch 9, 1891

DocketNo. 195

StatusPublished

Cited by12 cases

This text of 21 A. 408 (Bell v. Throop) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bell v. Throop, 21 A. 408, 140 Pa. 641, 1891 Pa. LEXIS 885 (Pa. 1891).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam:

The question of fraud and collusion between Throop and Tobias to hinder and delay the creditors of the latter, was submitted to the jury under proper instructions. The entry of the amicable action of ejectment was not evidence of fraud. As the learned judge instructed the jury, it is an every-day transaction. If we concede that Tobias intended a fraud, it would not affect Dr. Throop unless the knowledge of it was brought home to him. In other words, he must have participated in it. The mere acts or declarations of Tobias, after the transaction, would not be sufficient to connect Throop with the alleged fraud. Hence it was not error to reject the petition of Tobias for opening the judgment. At most, it was his ex parte declarations. Nor was it error to reject the deposition of Mrs. Tobias. It was offered to show her husband’s turpitude. While he might be willing to admit it, his wife was not a competent witness to prove it. She was testifying directly against her husband.

Judgment affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam:

The question of fraud and collusion between Throop and Tobias to hinder and delay the creditors of the latter, was submitted to the jury under proper instructions. The entry of the amicable action of ejectment was not evidence of fraud. As the learned judge instructed the jury, it is an every-day transaction. If we concede that Tobias intended a fraud, it would not affect Dr. Throop unless the knowledge of it was brought home to him. In other words, he must have participated in it. The mere acts or declarations of Tobias, after the transaction, would not be sufficient to connect Throop with the alleged fraud. Hence it was not error to reject the petition of Tobias for opening the judgment. At most, it was his ex parte declarations. Nor was it error to reject the deposition of Mrs. Tobias. It was offered to show her husband’s turpitude. While he might be willing to admit it, his wife was not a competent witness to prove it. She was testifying directly against her husband.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

21 A. 408, 140 Pa. 641, 1891 Pa. LEXIS 885, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bell-v-throop-pa-1891.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack