Bunn, Raiguel & Co. v. Ahl.

• Decision Date: 01 January 1857
• Citation: 29 Pa. 387
• Parties: Bunn, Raiguel & Co. versus Ahl.
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

29 Pa. 387

Bunn, Raiguel & Co. versus Ahl.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

ERROR to the District Court of Allegheny county.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Hartshorn and Shinn, for plaintiffs in error.

G. P. Hamilton and Shaler & Co., for defendant in error.

The opinion of the court was delivered by LOWRIE, J.

We are of opinion that none of these assignments of error are well founded, except one. Our time would not be well employed for the justification or exposition of any valuable principle, if spent in enlarging upon any of them except the last one. It has caused us some embarrassment, and we may explain the views that we take of it.

In answer to points specially put by the plaintiffs' counsel, the court had instructed the jury that if the contested judgment was knowingly given for more than was due in order to be used as a means of compelling other creditors to compound their claims; and if it was thus given and was used for such purpose; in either case it is void as against creditors.

Then comes the eighth point, which we must regard as negatived by the court. It needs some analysis in order to ascertain whether or not it was entitled to an affirmative answer.

"If the jury believe, from the evidence, that Daniel Ahl, Sr., advanced funds to D. Ahl, Jr., & Brother to enable them to commence and prosecute the business of dry goods merchants, and authorized them to assure their creditors that the money so advanced should be at the risk of their business, without preference to him at any time as a creditor." Here we may stop to remark that a mere authority to make representations to creditors, not carried out by representations actually made, is in no sense a fraud upon them. As no actual representations were made or proved, or offered to be, in this point, this part of it is of no value in the question to be decided. That the money was advanced in order to enable D. Ahl & Brother to commence business, is also unimportant. The only matter of importance remaining in this part of the point is the fact of the debt, and retaining this we read on, thus — If the jury believe that D. Ahl, Sr., advanced the money, "and afterwards procured the said firm to confess a judgment therefor — the judgment here in issue — for the purpose of being used in order to compel a compromise by said firm with its creditors," then the said judgment is void as against creditors. Let it be noticed that this point does not assert that the judgment was so used. The short way of stating the...