Hildebrand v. Bowman
| Decision Date | 02 October 1882 |
| Citation | 100 Pa. 580 |
| Parties | Hildebrand <I>versus</I> Bowman. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Before SHARSWOOD, C. J., MERCUR, GORDON, PAXSON, TRUNKEY, STERRETT and GREEN, JJ.
ERROR to the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster county: Of January Term 1882, No. 136 D. G. Eshleman, for the plaintiff in error. Mrs. Bowman, by consenting that the mare should be included in the $300 worth of property set apart for her husband under the exemption laws, gave the mare to her husband. There was testimony that John Hildebrand was at that time, and at the time when Bowman gave back the mare to his wife, a creditor of Bowman. The court should have submitted to the jury the question whether, if they found that John Hildebrand was an existing creditor, the gift to the wife was fraudulent as to him. But the court simply told the jury that "if Mrs. Bowman owned the mare in her own right, as her separate property at the time of the levy" she was entitled to recover. This was error.
A. C. Reinoehl, for the defendant in error.
In Mulford v. Shirk, 2 Ca. 473, it was said, by WOODWARD, Justice, that the reason why a reservation in a deed of assignment, for the benefit of creditors, of the three hundred dollars' worth of property exempted by the act of April 9th 1849, from levy and sale, does not render such assignment void, is because his creditors are not hindered or delayed by the reservation of that which they have no right to touch. So in Ehrisman v. Roberts, 18 P. F. S. 308, it was held, that as to those judgments on which appraisements had been held, the goods set apart to the debtor were his exclusive property, and that he might retain them or sell them as he saw fit.
The goods in controversy had been retained by Bowman, under the exemption act, in his deed of assignment executed in April 1878, and they had been regularly appraised and set apart to him. It follows from the authorities cited, that the gift of these goods by Bowman to his wife, put, as they were, by the law, out of the reach of his creditors, could not have been a fraud upon them, since they had had no rights therein which could be affected by such gift.
The court, therefore, committed no error when it said to the jury, that as to the appraised property, none of his creditors then existing, that is in 1878, except those who might have a waiver, could interfere or meddle with that property, and that h...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Finberg v. Sullivan
...exemption unless otherwise waived. (Rule 3123)." Commentary preceding Pa.R.Civ.P. 3101, 42 Purd.Ann.Stat. at page 316.16 Hildebrand v. Bowman, 100 Pa. 580, 582 (1882); Ehrisman v. Roberts, 68 Pa. 308 (1871).17 For example, Pa.R.Civ.P. 1017(b) indicates when a petition is necessary and when ......
-
Finberg v. Sullivan, Civ. A. No. 77-4166.
...of that property to revert to the debtor, who then has an absolute right to sell, retain or use it as he sees fit. Hildebrand v. Bowman, 100 Pa. 580, 582 (1882); Erishman v. Roberts, 68 Pa. 308 (1871); Sener v. Scherff, 10 Pa.C. 529, 531-32 (1891). And the effect of the reversion of exclusi......
-
Sealy Mattress Co. v. Southern Cotton Oil Co.
...to charge the jury that appellant must prove its case by a clear preponderance of the evidence. 37 Ark. 580; 32 Ark. 523; 115 Ark. 406; 100 Pa. 580. It was necessary for appellant to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that a contract was entered into, that a part of the goods were acc......
-
McFarland's Estate
...The interest in the note and judgment were included in the exemption: Larkin's Est., 132 Pa. 554; Larrison's App., 36 Pa. 130; Hildebrand v. Bowman, 100 Pa. 580; v. Roberts, 68 Pa. 308. Charles Geesey, with him Daniel J. Neff, for appellee. -- It is the duty of the assignor to be present at......