Wm. R. Hart & Co. v. Cooper

Citations

• 129 Pa. 297
• 18 A. 122
• 1889 Pa. LEXIS 954

Syllabus

<p>1. There is no provision in the act of July 12, 1842, P. L. 339, making the proceedings under a warrant of arrest, subsequent to the issuing of the warrant, a part of the record; and, upon a certiorari bringing up such a record, the Supreme Court can do no more than determine whether the affidavit on which the warrant was based is sufficient to justify it.</p> <p>2. If a contract creating a debt be free from fraud at the time it is made, a subsequent fraudulent breach of its conditions by Hie debtor, will not convert the indebtedness arising from it into a debt fraudulently contracted, within the meaning of that term as used in § 3, act of July 12, 1842,P. L. 339.</p> <p>(а) An affidavit in support of an application for a warrant ol arrest, averred that the plaintiffs had shipped certain iron, purchased from them by the defendants, to the plaintiffs’ agent, in care of the defendants, upon an agreement with the latter that it should remain in the cars unloaded and in the custody of said agent, until it should have been fully paid for.</p> <p>(б) The affidavit further averred that the defendants, in violation of said agreement and in fraud of the plaintiffs’ rights, had taken possession of said iron and converted it to their own use without paying for it, and had thus fraudulently incurred, within the meaning of the act of July 12, 1842, a debt or obligation for which a suit had been brought against them by the plaintiffs.</p> <p>3. These averments were at most an averment of a fraudulent breach of a contract not originally tainted with fraud, and, there being no averment connecting the subsequent fraud with the original purchase of the iron, the affidavit was insufficient to justify issuing a warrant, applied for upon the ground that the debt arising from that purchase was fraudulently contracted.</p>