Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

139 Pa. 399

Marshall v. Roll

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided January 5, 1891

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · decided 1891-01-05

2 OP ALLEGHENY COUNTY. No. 132 October Term 1890, Sup. Ct.; court below, No. 108 October Term 1889, C. P. No. 2. To the number and term of the court below, A. M. Marshall brought ejectment against George C. Roll and Minnie A. Roll, to recover two lots of ground in the Fourteenth ward, Pittsburgh. Issue.

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently January 1915

1 district ·

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““It was alleged, however, that, inasmuch as the conveyance was made and recorded before the indebtedness to Meyer and Lang, it was not fraudulent as to them. It does not appear that they had knowledge of the conveyance, and the record was not constructive notice to them. Had they been purchasers or mortgagees the case might have been different. Meyer and Lang were mere creditors, and were not obliged to search the records every time they sold a bill of goods. The jury having found that the conveyance was made with the intent to hinder and delay subsequent creditors, there is nothing left for us to discuss.””

quoted by 1 later decision, including Davis v. Cassels

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1891-01-05

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Per Curiam

¶1The jury have found that, at the time George C. Roll conveyed the real estate in controversy to his wife, he was insolvent, and that the conveyance was made with the fraudulent intent of placing said real estate beyond the reach of his creditors. This finding was fully warranted by the evidence. It was alleged, however, that, inasmuch as the conveyance was made and recorded before the indebtedness to Meyer & Lang arose, it was not fraudulent as to them. It does not appear that they had knowledge of the conveyance, and the record was not constructive notice to them. Had they been purchasers or mortgagees the ease might have been different. Meyer & Lang were mere creditors, and were not obliged to search the records *404every time, they sold a bill of goods.* The jury having found that the conveyance was made with intent to hinder and delay subsequent creditors, there is nothing left for us to discuss.

¶2Judgment affirmed.

¶3 And the sale being void as to the judgment for the creditors’ claim, was void also as to the purchaser at sheriff’s sale on that judgment: — Rep.

/139/pa/399 · .json · Public domain