Mates v. Young

96 A. 479, 251 Pa. 193, 1915 Pa. LEXIS 656
CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania
DecidedOctober 28, 1915
DocketAppeal, No. 9
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 96 A. 479 (Mates v. Young) 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
Mates v. Young, 96 A. 479, 251 Pa. 193, 1915 Pa. LEXIS 656 (Pa. 1915).

Opinion

Per Curiam,

On November 18, 1901, Elmer E. Young conveyed to his wife, Bella A. Young, the appellee, his undivided interest in the two tracts of land involved in this ejectment. Subsequently judgments were recovered against him by creditors who had claims against him at the time of his conveyance to his wife, and, on executions issued [198]*198upon them, the sheriff sold to the appellant, as trustee for himself and others, whatever interest Young had in the lands, the judgment creditors insisting that the conveyance to his wife was in fraud of creditors, and therefore void under the statute of 13 Elizabeth. The trial before a jury was interrupted by an agreement to submit the case to the court under the provisions of the Act of April 22, 1874, P. L. 109, and material findings of the trial judge were that, under all of the facts shown by the testimony, the conveyance on November 18, 1904, by which the land in dispute was conveyed, was not a voluntary one, but for a valuable consideration, and, even if voluntary, was not fraudulent, as the grantor had retained sufficient property with which to pay his then existing indebtedness. These findings were amply supported by testimony. The complaint of the appellant, that, in view of the abstract of title or facts filed by the defendant, and on which she relied for her defense, the court erred in admitting parol testimony, is sufficiently answered in its opinion dismissing the exceptions to findings of fact and conclusions of law. As no error is discoverable in the record, the judgment is affirmed.

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

Related

O'Kane v. Murray
89 Pa. Super. 11 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1926)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
96 A. 479, 251 Pa. 193, 1915 Pa. LEXIS 656, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mates-v-young-pa-1915.