| Kline v. First National Bank of Huntingdon
| Citation | 15 A. 433 |
| Parties | Kline v. First National Bank of Huntingdon |
| Decision Date | 01 October 1888 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania |
May 28, 1888. Error, No. 2, May T., 1888, to C. P. Adams Co., to review a judgment on a verdict for defendant on a feigned issue, wherein Enoch Kline was plaintiff, and The First National Bank of Huntingdon was defendant, at Jan. T., 1887 No. 32. TRUNKEY, J., absent.
The defendant bank issued an attachment execution, on a judgment against H. L. Beltzhoover, attaching a legacy due him in the hands of the executors of John Wolford, deceased. The executors presented a petition to the court averring that the legacy was claimed by Enoch Kline as assignee, and praying that an issue might be framed so as to relieve them from any liability for costs in the contest.
Nov 24, 1886, the court awarded an issue between Enoch Kline plaintiff, and The First National Bank of Huntingdon defendant, to determine the following questions of fact: 1st whether the alleged deed of assignment by Harry L. Beltzhoover, April 23d, 1883, to the plaintiff in this issue was bona fide executed for the consideration of $ 8,000.00, or whether it is void for want of said valuable consideration; 2d, whether said alleged deed of assignment was given for the purpose of defrauding the First National Bank of Huntingdon and other creditors of Harry L. Beltzhoover. A declaration in assumpsit, as upon a wager, and a special plea in bar and a joinder in that issue, to be filed. The narr, plea and replication were duly filed.
On the trial, the evidence was to the effect that, on April 23, 1883, Kline, with Beltzhoover, his son-in-law, went from Huntingdon county to Adams county, where the legacy was payable, during the progress of the sale of the personal property of the firm of J. W. Mumper & Co., of which Beltzhoover was a member. Kline testified that he knew of the sheriff's sale, and that the sale of the legacy was to give Beltzhoover money to go west. Beltzhoover's interest in the legacy amounted to from $ 10,000 to $ 12,000. Kline bought it for $ 8,000, agreeing to transfer forty shares of stock of the United New Jersey railroad, worth $ 191.25 a share, and $ 350 paid in cash. The stock was not assigned until about a month afterwards.
The evidence also showed that Kline had loaned the sum of $ 4,000 to the firm of J. W. Mumper & Co. As security for this loan, they transferred to him a large quantity of iron, some of it in the hands of Caughey & Robinson. Shipments were made by Beltzhoover upon shipping-orders signed by Kline in blank. The amount realized from the sale of the iron was $ 7,057.09.
Enoch Kline, the plaintiff, being called to the stand by defendant, as for cross-examination, defendant proposed to ask him how much property of J. W. Mumper & Co., of which Harry L. Beltzhoover was a member, he had received prior to April 23, 1883, the date of the alleged assignment of the legacy, what he did with that property, and how much money he received as the proceeds of the sale of it, and what he did with the money received by him, and especially what he did with the surplus, over and above the amount of the alleged indebtedness of J. W. Mumper & Co. to him, contracted on Feb. 15, 1882; for the purpose of showing that this plaintiff had in his possession a large amount of the assets of the firm of J. W. Mumper & Co., of which H. L. Beltzhoover was a member, and that he held that property and the proceeds away from other creditors so as to assist them in delaying and defrauding other creditors, and preventing them reaching these assets that had been re-transferred to him.
Objected to that the purpose as developed does not connect this transaction in any way whatever with the question involved in the issue now before the court, and that it is therefore irrelevant.
Defendant's counsel proposed to further show that the assignment of this legacy was a part of the general scheme to cover all the assets of J. W. Mumper & Co., and of each of the members of the firm, so as to be incapable of being reached by the creditors.
Objected to further that the purpose does not disclose or show that the assignee of the legacy in question called into this case had any knowledge of any such intention or purpose on the part of J. W. Mumper & Co., and therefore is not evidence.
The Court: Witness being party plaintiff, on cross-examination, his conduct in the premises is entitled to be scrutinized closely, and every thing relating to his conduct with the assignor of the legacy. Objection overruled and exception. [1]
Kline testified, inter alia, that the iron was sold to him.
Defendant's counsel offered in evidence the exemplifications of the record of Huntingdon county for the purpose of showing that H. L. Beltzhoover was insolvent at the time of the transfer of the share of his grandfather's estate,--that he was being sold out by the sheriff in Huntingdon Co. on the very day this assignment bears date.
Objected to, that it shows no connection with or knowledge brought home to Enoch Kline, the plaintiff in this case; and without that it is not evidence. Mere insolvency, even if brought to the knowledge of the vendee, would be no evidence of fraud at all.
Ex-Judge Orvis: It is a fact in connection with other evidence in the case.
The Court: I do not see very well how we can admit it in its bare shape.
Ex-Judge Orvis: That, at the time of this assignment, the assignor, H. L. Beltzhoover, was being sold out by the sheriff in Huntingdon county,--that all his property there was being sold by his creditors or alleged creditors, at the very time;--and we propose by these records to show that a large amount of the judgments were not paid after exhausting all his property in Huntingdon county; and that, as testified by Mr. Kline, he had no other property except that received by this assignment.
Mr. Bailey: The purpose of the present offer is to show that he was insolvent; and, with other circumstances, lead up to the conclusion that there was fraud.
The Court: Admitted, with the evidence already in the case and evidence to follow tending to show fraud in the transfer of the legacy. Exception. [2]
Defendant offered to show that $ 32,000.00, raised on the sale of the real estate, was appropriated to other judgments than defendants had given in evidence, that no part of the judgments given in evidence yesterday, amounting to something like $ 40,000.00, are included in these judgments, confirmed absolutely, and an appeal taken by some of the creditors April 20, 1887, by Samuel H. Irvin, one of the creditors of J. W. Mumper & Co., and now in the supreme court.
This embraced in the offer of yesterday, and under the same exception. [3]
Defendants also offered in evidence deposition of Eben M. Valentine, taken in the city of Philadelphia on May 4, 1887, between the hours of 8 A. M. and 6 P. M., before Theodore L. Randall, notary public; for the purpose of showing the amount of iron sold by the witness, Eben M. Valentine, for Enoch Kline, and the amount received for that iron and remitted to Enoch Kline. Offered in connection with the testimony on cross-examination of Enoch Kline.
Objected to as irrelevant and not pertinent to the issue trying.
The Court: Admitted as tending to show combination, and shedding light on the transaction of the transfer of the legacy. Exception. [4.]
Defendant's counsel proposed to prove that Mr. Kline kept an account in The First National Bank of Huntingdon; that he had a balance in that bank in the fore part of the winter of 1882 and 1883; that he drew a check for $ 760.00, or some amount of that kind, which exhausted his balance in bank, with the exception of a small sum of between one and two dollars; that for a long time prior to April 23, 1883, that small sum was the only amount he had in bank; and that, during the time the bank was carrying the notes already spoken of by the plaintiff, in his cross-examination, of $ 2,000.00 and $ 1,240.00, that at the time he renewed them in February and March, 1883, he had no funds in bank except this slight balance of one dollar and some odd cents; and that that balance remained there in the summer of 1883, when he closed his account by checking it out. To be followed by an account that he opened and kept in the Huntingdon Bank,--having testified himself that these two banks were the only two banks in which he kept accounts. For the purpose of showing that he had not the money that he alleges that he paid to H. L. Beltzhoover on April 23, 1883,--$ 350.00. For the purpose of contradicting his testimony, that is, showing that he had not the means of making this payment that he alleges; and to show that these remittances that he testified having received from Caughey & Robinson were not deposited in either of these accounts, the only accounts that he says that he kept in bank.
Objected to, that it is not evidence for the purpose offered; that it does not contradict Mr. Kline, because he said he kept and always had more or less money at home, and that he had the money which he had here in payment on account of this legacy in his pocket. Also, that from his testimony of his assets, he was a man of considerable means, and would most likely have much larger sums of money than the amount named about his person or house.
The Court: It will not be very important, gentlemen, but we will admit the evidence. Exception. [5]
The defendants having already proven that Enoch Kline, the plaintiff, was the father-in-law of H. L. Beltzhoover, from whom he took the assignment of the legacy in controversy, and had received from J. W. Mumper and H. L. Beltzhoover, large amounts of iron belonging to the firm of J. W. Mumper & Co. and that Enoch Kline and H. L. Beltzhoover came to Gettysburg together on the...
To continue reading
Request your trial