Adams v. Hitner

Citations

• 140 Pa. 166
• 21 A. 260
• 1891 Pa. LEXIS 822

Syllabus

<p>1. In an issue to determine the validity of the transfer of a mortgage by a father to a son, at a time when the father was alleged to be insolvent, a note not shown to be connected with the creditor’s judgment, and signed, not by the father but by a firm of which he was a member, is inadmissible as irrelevant.</p> <p>2. A contract between father and son, providing for an unreasonable and extravagant compensation for the services of the son, is not fraudulent, as matter of law; if made when the father is possessed of large means and believed himself solvent, it would not be a fraud in law, or in fact, unless made to defraud future creditors.</p> <p>S. Where a preferred creditor receives from his debtor real estate and personal property amounting nominally to $23,750, in settlement of an indebtedness of $20,935.10, the court cannot declare, as matter of law, that the transaction was fraudulent: whether there was fraud in it or not was a question of fact for the jury.</p>