Schock v. Solar Gas Light Co.

Citations

• 222 Pa. 271
• 71 A. 94
• 1908 Pa. LEXIS 692

Syllabus

<p>Evidence — Particular fact — Link in the chain — Fraud.</p> <p>Evidence may be legally admissible as tending, to prove a particular fact, which yet by itself is utterly insufficient for the purpose. It may be a link in the chain, but it cannot make a chain unless other links are added. This rule applies particularly to cases of fraud.</p> <p>Facts or circumstances unconnected with the fraud alleged, and which could operate only by means of raising a prejudice against the individual, ought to be excluded. But fraud in its nature eludes the light and walks in ambushes and deceits. Therefore, a latitude, to the extent of a fair connection with the transactions involved, on the part of the actor or actors who are to be affected, is allowed. Fraud is never to be presumed; it must be proved. But it is often most effectively proved by a chain of connected facts and circumstances.</p> <p>In an action of ejectment, where the issue is to determine whether real estate bought from an assignee in bankruptcy was in fact the property of the bankrupt, a verdict in favor of the purchasers will be sustained where a course of dealing is shown between the bankrupt and a corporation in whose name he had placed the title from which the jury could draw the inference that the transaction was intended to defraud the bankrupt’s creditors.</p>