Ahl v. Harrisburg etc. R.

Citations

• 129 Pa. 49
• 18 A. 477
• 1889 Pa. LEXIS 1225

Syllabus

<p>1. The assignment of a contract to construct a railroad, without consideration from the assignee, but made to facilitate the completion of the contract and to secure at the earliest moment the entire sum to be paid under it, for the benefit of the assignor’s creditors, is not fraudulent and void.</p> <p>2. At all events, even if the assignment were intended to hinder and delay the creditors of the assignor, and therefore fraudulent, the assignee, being a party to the intent, may not complain in equity, after the money payable under the contract has been paid over, on completion, according to the terms of the assignment.</p> <p>3. It is a general rule that when a court of equity has once obtained jurisdiction of a cause of action, for one purpose, it may retain it for purposes of equitable relief not specifically prayed for in the bill, but disclosed by the evidence: McGowin v. Remington, 12 Pa. 5G; Allison’s App., 77 Pa, 221; Adams’s App., 113 Pa. 449.</p> <p>4. But if, after hearing, the master and court have found against the plaintiff upon every averment in his bill, the disclosure by the evidence of some other demand capable of being enforced at law, and not within the jurisdiction of equity, will not give to the court jurisdiction to proceed upon that cause of action.</p>