Avery v. Layton

Citations

• 119 Pa. 604
• 13 A. 528
• 1888 Pa. LEXIS 580

Syllabus

<p>A father and son had been convicted upon an indictment for a conspiracy to cheat and defraud the creditors of the father. ’ In order to obtain their favorable recommendation towards a mitigated sentence, the son gave a bond to the prosecuting creditors to protect them from the claims of the son and an uncle against them for the seizure at their instance and a sale by the sheriff a second time of property which the son and uncle had bought at a prior sheriff’s sale as the property of the father.</p> <p>A nominal sentence having been imposed, judgment was entered upon the bond, but being subsequently opened to allow a defence to be made, the defendant endeavored upon the evidence to sustain the claim that the bond was executed under the influence of representations of the prosecuting creditors and their attorneys that if he did not execute it he would be sentenced to the penitentiary, and that it was therefore void: Held,</p> <p>1. That the court having fairly and clearly presented the ease to the jury, an instruction that if they should find the bond was obtained by duress, or was given in pursuance of an arrangement to turn aside the course of justice, or to prevent the prosecution or punishment of crime it was not binding, was as favorable as the defendant could require.</p> <p>2. That it was not error to admit evidence that the obligor had brought suit against one of the obligees of the bond to recover damages for the sale to indemnify against which the bond was given, as showing the situation and interest of the obligor in the issue trying.</p> <p>3. Nor was it error to admit in evidence the judgments, writs of execution and returns, on which the first sale of the father’s property had taken place when it was purchased by the son and uncle, as part of the history of the transaction out of which the bond resulted.</p>