Lockhart v. Stevenson

• Decision Date: 11 May 1869
• Citation: 61 Pa. 64
• Parties: Lockhart <I>et al. versus</I> Stevenson.
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

61 Pa. 64

Lockhart et al. versus Stevenson.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

February 9, 1869.

May 11, 1869.

February 9th 1869.

Before THOMPSON, C. J., AGNEW and WILLIAMS, JJ. READ, J., at Nisi Prius. SHARSWOOD, J., absent.

Error to the District Court of Philadelphia: No. 195, to January Term 1869.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

W. S. Price, for plaintiffs in error.—The transaction was a sale and delivery, and good, although for certain specified creditors: York Co. Bank v. Carter, 2 Wright 446. It was not an assignment for the benefit of creditors within the act. Wootten created no trust: Ridgway v. Stewart, 4 W. & S. 391; Fallon's Appeal, 6 Wright 235; Beans v. Bullitt, 7 P. F. Smith 221; Chaffees v. Risk, 12 Harris 432; Henderson's Appeal, 7 Casey 502.

W. W. Wiltbank and W. E. Whitman, for defendant in error. —The transaction was, according to the intent of the parties, as well as in its legal effect, an assignment for themselves and other creditors of Wootten: Bittenbender v. Sunbury & E. Railroad, 4 Wright 270; McCulloch v. Hutchinson, 7 Watts 434; Reigart's Appeal, 4 Barr 477; Watson v. Bagaley, 2 Jones 164; Lucas v. Sunbury & E. Railroad, 8 Casey 461; Driesbach v. Becker, 10 Id. 152; Fallon's Appeal, supra; Vallance v. Insurance Co., 6 Wright 444. The neglect to record the instrument at the proper time rendered it void: Englebert v. Blanjot, 2 Whart. 240; Seal v. Duffy, 4 Barr 274. The assignment was within the Act of Assembly, although in favor of only some creditors: Flanagin v. Wetherill, 5 Whart. 286; Reigart's Appeal, 4 Barr 477; Vallance v. Ins. Co., 6 Wright 444.

The opinion of the court was delivered, May 11th 1869, by WILLIAMS, J.

If the bill of sale, executed by Wootten, was an assignment of the goods in controversy to Lockhart & Frew, in trust for themselves and the other creditors whom they represented, it ought to have been recorded; and as it was not, it would necessarily follow that it was null and void under the express provision of the Act of 24th March 1818, and that the judgment was rightly entered in favor of the defendant on the reserved question. But if it was not an assignment, but an absolute sale of the goods for a full consideration paid by the vendees, then the judgment ought to have been entered in favor of the plaintiffs on the verdict. Whether it was an assignment, or a sale, the jury have found that the transaction was a fair one — that the consideration was paid — and that the vendees took actual possession of the property at the time of the transfer, and continued to hold it against the vendor; and that it was not made with an intent to defraud, hinder or delay his creditors. What, then, was the character of the transaction? Was it a sale or an assignment? The bill of sale, on its face, imports a sale, and not the creation of a trust for the benefit of creditors. If it was, in fact, an assignment, it must be shown by other evidence than that furnished by the paper itself. Is there, then, any extrinsic evidence that the real character of the transaction was different from that expressed in the bill of sale? We have not been able to discover any in the record. On the...