Greenwalt v. Austin

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Greenwalt v. Austin

1 Grant 169, 1854 Pa. LEXIS 226

DecidedOctober 17, 1854

StatusPublished

This text of 1 Grant 169 (Greenwalt v. Austin) 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

Greenwalt v. Austin, 1 Grant 169, 1854 Pa. LEXIS 226 (Pa. 1854).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered

by Black, J.

— This was a feigned issue to try the validity of certain judgments, which the defendant had taken against his son, who was insolvent. It is not denied that the debt was honestly due. The objection to the judgments is, that they were taken with intent to hinder and delay the present plaintiff, who had a claim which was not reduced to judgment until the assets of the debtor were taken on his father’s execution.

The notion of the plaintiff in error, seems to be that when an insolvent person has two creditors equally meritorious, one of them shall not be permitted to secure his debt without waiting until the other has taken all the property, upon pain of being charged with fraud and having his security declared void. This obligation upon the creditors to be diligent in getting behind one [171]*171another is mutual. The prize must always be given to the slowest. Upon this principle two liens of simultaneous date ought both to be set aside, for each hinders the other. But such is not the law. A man commits no fraud who takes a judgment for an honest debt. One creditor has no right to complain because another gets ahead of him.

This mistake of the plaintiff in error, pervades all his exceptions. We think the cause was rightly decided all through.

Judgment .affirmed.

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

The opinion of the court was delivered

by Black, J.

— This was a feigned issue to try the validity of certain judgments, which the defendant had taken against his son, who was insolvent. It is not denied that the debt was honestly due. The objection to the judgments is, that they were taken with intent to hinder and delay the present plaintiff, who had a claim which was not reduced to judgment until the assets of the debtor were taken on his father’s execution.

The notion of the plaintiff in error, seems to be that when an insolvent person has two creditors equally meritorious, one of them shall not be permitted to secure his debt without waiting until the other has taken all the property, upon pain of being charged with fraud and having his security declared void. This obligation upon the creditors to be diligent in getting behind one [171]*171another is mutual. The prize must always be given to the slowest. Upon this principle two liens of simultaneous date ought both to be set aside, for each hinders the other. But such is not the law. A man commits no fraud who takes a judgment for an honest debt. One creditor has no right to complain because another gets ahead of him.

This mistake of the plaintiff in error, pervades all his exceptions. We think the cause was rightly decided all through.

Judgment .affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 Grant 169, 1854 Pa. LEXIS 226, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/greenwalt-v-austin-pa-1854.