Dingman v. Nichols

Decided November 2, 1874

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · decided 1874-11-02

No. 90 November Term, 1874. There was an action of trespass brought by Andrew J. Nichols against Dingman and others to recover damages for selling certain goods claimed by Nichols at Sheriff’s sale as the property of Samuel Lipton. It appeared that Lipton, a storekeeper, being indebted to various creditors, sold his whole stock of goods to Nichols, receiving $50 in cash, and notes of Nichols for $850, payable in future, and then absconded.

Decided 1874-11-02

¶1The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Common Pleas on November 2nd, 1874, in the following opinion :

Per-Curiam.

¶2The offer to prove that the plaintiff was intemperate, and that he gambled, was irrelevant to the question of fraud, unless to this proof the fact was added that these habits were known to Lipton at the time he made his'sale to the plaintiff.

¶3Lipton’s knowledge that the plaintiff was untrustworthy on account of these habits was essential to the pertinency of the habit to the question of fraud in the sale.

¶4The offer did not go far enough, and therefore we cannot say the Court erred in rejecting the offer.

¶5Judgment affirmed.