Fassit v. Phillips
This text of 4 Whart. 399 (Fassit v. Phillips) 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.
Opinion
The charge of actual fraud is repelled by the answer; and an implication of legal fraud cannot be.raised from the admitted fact, that the house was left out of the assignment. In Thomas v. Jenhs, a substantial benefit was reserved ; but here there was nothing of the sort. The legal title, incumbered as it is sworn to be, beyond the fee simple value, is a caput mortuum, which though it might have swelled the apparent amount of the schedule, could have held out but a deceptive promise to the creditors. It would therefore be useless, and perhaps mischievous, to suspend the execution of the trust till the hearing.
Injunction dissolved.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
4 Whart. 399, 1839 Pa. LEXIS 222, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fassit-v-phillips-pa-1839.