Biddle v. Black

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Biddle v. Black

99 Pa. 380, 1882 Pa. LEXIS 171

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedJanuary 30, 1882

StatusPublished

Cited by12 cases

This text of 99 Pa. 380 (Biddle v. Black) 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

Biddle v. Black, 99 Pa. 380, 1882 Pa. LEXIS 171 (Pa. 1882).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice Mercur,

delivered the opinion of the court January 30th 1882.

The learned judge committed no error in dissolving the attachment. . The affidavit is defective. It does not set forth specifically, the fraudulent acts of the defendant: nor is it made in the words of the statute. It does not sufficiently describe the kind of property, and is wholly silent as to the time the merchandise was purchased. The evidence did not establish that possession of the goods was obtained by artifice or false pretences, indicating an intention to defraud the vendors. Mere insolvency and knowledge of it by the vendees do not establish fraud in the purchase: Rodman v. Thalheimer, 25 P. F. Smith 232, and cases there cited. It was error, however, to quash the writ. There had been a personal service on the defendant. While the property was justly released, yet the suit goes on: Sharpless v. Ziegler, 11 Norris 467.

As to so much of the judgment as quashed the writ, judgment reversed and a procedendo is awarded.

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

Mr. Justice Mercur,

delivered the opinion of the court January 30th 1882.

The learned judge committed no error in dissolving the attachment. . The affidavit is defective. It does not set forth specifically, the fraudulent acts of the defendant: nor is it made in the words of the statute. It does not sufficiently describe the kind of property, and is wholly silent as to the time the merchandise was purchased. The evidence did not establish that possession of the goods was obtained by artifice or false pretences, indicating an intention to defraud the vendors. Mere insolvency and knowledge of it by the vendees do not establish fraud in the purchase: Rodman v. Thalheimer, 25 P. F. Smith 232, and cases there cited. It was error, however, to quash the writ. There had been a personal service on the defendant. While the property was justly released, yet the suit goes on: Sharpless v. Ziegler, 11 Norris 467.

As to so much of the judgment as quashed the writ, judgment reversed and a procedendo is awarded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

99 Pa. 380, 1882 Pa. LEXIS 171, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/biddle-v-black-pa-1882.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack