Palmer v. Gilmore

Citations

• 148 Pa. 48
• 23 A. 1041
• 1892 Pa. LEXIS 906

Syllabus

<p>Foreign attachment — Collateral impeachment of judgment for fraud.</p> <p>Plaintiff having issued a foreign attachment in C. P. No. 1, of Philadelphia, against a debt represented by a judgment in C. P. No 2, the defendant in C. P. No. 2 (garnishee in C. P. No. 1) took a rule to open the judgment, which was resisted by an attaching creditor of plaintiff therein. The claim of this attaching creditor having been paid and his opposition withdrawn, the judgment was opened, the case tried before a jury and a verdict rendered for defendant. The defendant then, as garnishee in C. P. No. 1, pleaded nulla bona. The case was then tried, the issue being the determination of whether or not the trial in C. P. No. 2 was collusive and fraudulent and the verdict obtained by a combination between plaintiff and defendant. It was</p> <p>Eeld: 1. Thatthe judgmentnoteenteredinC. P. No. 2 would have made a prima facie case for this plaintiff against the garnishee had it not been neutralized by the verdict upon it for defendant.</p> <p>2. If the jury in the present case should be satisfied that that verdict was collusive and fraudulent against the present plaintiff as an attaching creditor, then the verdict would be a nullity as to her, and this case would stand as it stood on the opened judgment in C. P. No. 2, to wit, a prima facie case for the plaintiff made out by the note, and the burden on the defendant to show that there was nothing really due.</p> <p>Fraud and collusion — Evidence—Question for jury.</p> <p>Where a judgment has been attached by a suit in foreign attachment, and subsequently the judgment is opened, an attaching creditor who opposed this action being paid the amount of his claim, and a verdict and judgment is obtained for the defendant, there being, besides, direct testimony that this was in pursuance of a fraudulent agreement between plaintiff and defendant, a case is made out which, if uncontradicted or unexplained, would justify the jury in finding that there wa