Translation:Shulchan Aruch/Choshen Mishpat/118

Paragraph 1- If a borrower sold his properties to two individuals, one after the other, and his creditor wrote to the second purchaser that he has no claims against him, and they made a kinyan to that effect, the creditor would not be able to collect from the first purchaser because the first purchaser can tell him that he left the properties the second purchaser acquired after me by his debtor for him to collect and you caused yourself a loss by removing yourself from those properties. The same would apply with respect a woman and her kesubah and if she wrote such language to the second purchaser she has forfeited her kesubah and would not be able to seize from the first purchaser. If, however, they wrote such language to the first purchaser, they may seize from the second. If the first purchaser sold the property to a third party, they would not be able to collect from the second purchaser just as they cannot seize if the property had stayed in the first purchaser’s possession.

Paragraph 2- If the borrower sold a field to a purchaser and subsequently sold a second field to a second purchaser, and the lender wrote to the second purchaser that he has no claims with him, and they made a kinyan to that effect, the creditor may seize the first field from the first purchaser and the first purchaser would seize the second field from the second purchaser because he made a kinyan after him, the creditor would seize the field from the first purchaser, the second purchaser would seize it from the creditor because of what he wrote to him and the first purchaser would seize it again from the second and it would keep going around until the parties agree to a compromise. The same would apply for a woman collecting her kesubah, This all applies where the debt was equal to the sum of the two fields.

Paragraph 3- The same rule would apply if the debt was one maneh, the borrower sold to each of the two buyers at a maneh, the creditor wrote to the second buyer that he has no claims against him and it turns out the field the first purchaser acquired did not actually belong to the borrower, in which case the first purchaser will seize from the second purchaser, the creditor will seize from the first purchaser, the second purchaser will seize from the creditor and it would keep going around until the parties agree to a compromise.

Paragraph 4- Similarly, if the field that the first purchaser acquired was designated for collection to an earlier creditor, that creditor would seize it from the first purchaser, the first creditor would seize it from the second creditor, the last creditor would seize it from the first and the second purchaser would seize it from the creditor and it would keep going around.