Schwartz v. Hersker
Schwartz v. Hersker
Opinion of the Court
If the court below had affirmed the defendant’s first point, the case would have been withdrawn from the jury. It does not follow that, because the assignment by Schwartz to Hersker was absolute upon its face, the latter was entitled to collect the money and keep it. There was sufficient evidence of a trust to submit to the jury. Nor was it error to decline the defendant’s second point. This point also contained the vice of withdrawing the case from the jury, and, in addition, assumed the facts. There was evidence to corroborate the plaintiff’s allegations. The third, fourth, fifth, and sixth assignments all refer to the testimony of Frederick Miller. It was alleged that, as the conversation between Miller and the defendant had not been communicated to the plaintiff, it had no relevancy to the
Judgment affirmed.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- CONRAD SCHWARTZ v. JOHN HERSKER
- Cited By
- 4 cases
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- (a) The evidence of the plaintiff in an action of assumpsit was to the effect that he had transferred certain judgments to the defendant by an absolute assignment, but without consideration, and for the purpose of enabling the defendant to collect the amount due for the use of the plaintiff. (b) The evidence of the defendant was to the effect that the assignment was absolute, in adjustment of an existing indebtedness, and to give the defendant, as assignee, a preference over other creditors of the plaintiff ; evidence as to the alleged indebtedness being submitted by both parties: 1. In such case, it did not follow that, because on its face the assignment was absolute, the defendant was entitled to collect the money due on the judgments and keep it; upon the evidence submitted, the question whether the defendant held the money in trust for the plaintiff was properly for the jury. 2. Statements by'the defendant, before the assignment, that he would endeavor to obtain the assignment and the purpose thereof, and like statements, after it, that it had been obtained and the purpose thereof, were competent as admissions by the defendant, though not at the time communicated to the plaintiff.