Soperstein v. Salsberg

Citations

• 17 Pa. Super. 288
• 1901 Pa. Super. LEXIS 304

Syllabus

<p>Interpleader — Sheriff's interpleader — Fraud—Evidence—Amendment.</p> <p>On a sheriff’s interpleader where the issue framed is to determine whether the plaintiff in the interpleader, who is the claimant of the goods, has the right to rescind the contract by which he sold the goods to the defendant in the execution, it is proper for the court to refuse to permit the plaintiff to amend his statement by adding a clause to the effect that the judgment which the defendant in the execution had confessed to the defendant in the interpleader, and under which the goods were taken in execution, was collusive and fraudulent. In such a case, if the contract was made in New York, evidence is admissible to show that the defendant in the interpleader knew, or ought to have known, that the defendant in the execution had acquired an apparent property in the goods by fraudulent practices.</p> <p>Sale — Rescission of contract — Fraud.</p> <p>When a purchaser of goods at the time of the sale represents that he has a balance of assets over liabilities of about $11,000, and it is established beyond controversy that the assets over liabilities did not amount to over $1000, the question of misrepresentation should be submitted to a jury in a proceeding to set aside the sale.</p>