Marshall v. Roll
This text of 20 A. 999 (Marshall v. Roll) 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 jury have found that, at the time George C. Roll conveyed the real estate in controversy to his wife, he was insolvent, and that the conveyance was made with the fraudulent intent of placing said real estate beyond the reach of his creditors. This finding was fully warranted by the evidence. It was alleged, however, that, inasmuch as the conveyance was made and recorded before the indebtedness to Meyer & Lang arose, it was not fraudulent as to them. It does not appear that they had knowledge of the conveyance, and the record was not constructive notice to them. Had they been purchasers or mortgagees the ease might have been different. Meyer & Lang were mere creditors, and were not obliged to search the records [404]*404every time, they sold a bill of goods.
Judgment affirmed.
And the sale being void as to the judgment for the creditors’ claim, was void also as to the purchaser at sheriff’s sale on that judgment: — Rep.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
20 A. 999, 139 Pa. 399, 1891 Pa. LEXIS 1007, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marshall-v-roll-pa-1891.