Abramovitz v. Krull

Citations

• 73 Pa. Super. 373
• 1920 Pa. Super. LEXIS 22

Syllabus

<p>Trespass — Damages for improper levy and sale — Act of March 28, 1905, P. L. 62, (Bulk Sales Act) — Notice—Nonsuit—Question for fury.</p> <p>In an action of trespass to recover damages sustained by the plaintiff in consequence of an improper levy and sheriff’s sale of his goods, the defense was that the plaintiff, a purchaser of certain goods in hulk, had not complied with the provisions of the Act of March 28, 1905, P. L. 62, (Bulk Sales Act) in giving notice to the defendant who was one of the creditors of the original vendor. No evidence was produced to show that the defendant was a creditor at the time of the sale or that any of the other creditors were complaining. Under such circumstances the case was for the jury and the entry of judgment of nonsuit constituted reversible error.</p> <p>The fact that other creditors had not received notice did not avail the defendant, if they afterwards confirmed the sale by accepting the amounts due them, and the defendant would not be relieved from liability by the omission of the plaintiff to give such notice to creditors, who were not then complaining.</p> <p>The intentional and wilful omission of the name of one of his creditors by one who sells his property in bulk, in answer to the purchaser’s inquiry for a list of his creditors, will render the seller liable for the penalties provided in the second section of the Act of March 28, 1905, P. L. 62, but such conduct will not subject the merchandise purchased to execution process, at the instance of an undisclosed creditor.</p>