Tams v. Bullitt et al.
| Decision Date | 01 January 1860 |
| Citation | 35 Pa. 308 |
| Parties | Tams versus Bullitt et al. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
It is exceedingly difficult to obtain a clear view of all the points in this case from the paper-book which has been furnished to us. It appears, however, to have been an action of assumpsit for money had and received, brought against William Tams, by Bullitt & Fairthorne, assignees of John Tams, under the insolvent laws. John Tams was discharged as an insolvent on the 9th of October 1852, and his assignment to the trustees is dated on the 5th of July in the same year. But one of all the pleadings in the case is exhibited. The bill of particulars represents the claim to have been for divers sums of money received by the defendant at different times between January 2d 1851, and October 4th 1853. On the trial of the cause, objection was made to the admission of certain evidence offered by the plaintiffs, and the ruling of the court below, admitting it, is made the ground of complaint here. We are unable, however, to perceive that any error was committed in receiving the evidence. The bill of exceptions is not on our paper-books, and there is nothing to show that the testimony of Mr. Woodward could, by any possibility, have injured the plaintiff in error, even if it was not pertinent to the issue on trial. And we can well see how it may have been pertinent. If it tended to establish that the transactions between William Tams and John Tams were fraudulent as against the creditors of the latter (which seems to have been the theory of the plaintiffs), it was clearly admissible, even though it did not prove directly any item in the bill of particulars, or in itself show any indebtedness on the part of William to John Tams. The right of the plaintiffs to recover might well depend upon the question whether the transactions between William Tams and John Tams were honest, or in fraud of creditors. As between the two brothers, there may have been no right in John to recover money received by William, but if the money came to William's hands in pursuance of a fraudulent arrangement, the plaintiffs, who were clothed with the rights of the creditors, could disregard that arrangement, and recover when John Tams himself could not. For aught that we can see, therefore, the evidence offered was perfectly legitimate. The avowed purpose of offering it was to show fraud, and without the entire case before us, it is impossible to say that it was not directly pertinent. Indeed this exception was not pressed on the argument. It was unnoticed, if not abandoned.
The second assignment of error is equally without foundation. It is obvious, that the evidence offered tended almost irresistibly to show that William Tams had money belonging to John. Else why charge commissions for receiving it? And that they were commissions for receiving money prior to John Tams's insolvency, is evident, from the account afterwards given in evidence, which states receipts as early as January 2d 1851. That the testimony did not prove the plaintiff's whole case, is no reason why it should have been rejected. It was a link in the chain, and, connected with what was proved at a subsequent stage of the trial, no unimportant link.
Nor can we doubt that the account proved by Charles Brooks was properly received in evidence. It is true, the witness did not prove that William Tams had read it, and expressly acknowledged its correctness. But there was sufficient evidence to prepare the way for its being submitted to the jury to find whether the items therein contained had been assented to by him. It had been before the arbitration at which both William and John were present, and at which an effort was made to effect a settlement between them. The items had been read in the presence of both the brothers, and William then made no objection to any but one. This was certainly some proof of an admission, some proof of an assent to the correctness of the statement, quite enough to send it to the jury.
The only debatable question in this case is that presented by the fifth and sixth assignments of error. The defendant gave in evidence the record of an attachment execution, sued out by Edwin Tams against John Tams, defendant, and William Tams and Richards & Bispham,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fourth St. Nat. Bank v. Millbourne Mills Co.'s Trustee
... ... similarly authorized to avoid the fraudulent acts of the ... insolvent in the interest of creditors. Tams v ... Bullitt, 35 Pa. 308; Ruff v. Ruff, 85 Pa. 333, ... 336. 'A voluntary assignee for the benefit of ... creditors,' says Chief Justice ... ...
-
Arkwright Mutual Insurance Co. v. Bargain City, USA, Inc.
... ... Wigton, 84 Pa. 163); but Tams v. Bullitt, 35 Pa. 308 establishes the distinction that when the assignee, trustee, or whatever he may be called derives his authority, not from the ... ...
-
Hess's Estate
... ... original defendant, who was not a party to and took no part ... in the attachment proceeding: Breading v. Siegworth, ... 29 Pa. 396; Tams v. Bullitt, 35 Pa. 308; Noble ... v. Thompson Oil Company, 79 Pa. 354 ... The ... appellant, as attaching creditor, and the appellee, ... ...
-
In re Heckathorn
... ... 964. The trustee ... in any such controversy is invested with the rights of ... creditors. In re Butterwick (D.C.) 131 F. 371; Tams ... v. Bullit; 35 Pa. 308; Duplex Printing Press Co. v ... Clipper Publishing Co., 213 Pa. 207, 62 A. 841; ... English v. Ross (D.C.) 140 F. 630 ... ...