Fournier v. Ingraham
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
ERROR, to the Common Pleas of Philadelphia county, by which a feigned issue was directed, upon the report of an auditor that such a course was proper, to try the - right of Honoré Fournier, former assignee of Anthony Laussat, to receive out of the assigned estate of Laussat certain commissions and expenses incurred and paid by him for the trust estate, before his dismissal as assignee.
Read the full summary
ERROR, to the Common Pleas of Philadelphia county, by which a feigned issue was directed, upon the report of an auditor that such a course was proper, to try the - right of Honoré Fournier, former assignee of Anthony Laussat, to receive out of the assigned estate of Laussat certain commissions and expenses incurred and paid by him for the trust estate, before his dismissal as assignee. Anthony Laussat, on the 8th June 1819, made an assignment of his estate in trust for the benefit of his creditors, to Honoré Fournier, who took upon himself the execution of the trusts thereof, and continued to…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Rogers, J.
Although the precise point may not have been decided, yet the principle which governs the case has been ruled in several instances. Thus in Gray v. Bell, (4 Watts 410), and Vanarsdale v. Richards, (1 Whart. 408), it is held, that the assignees under a voluntary assignment are not liable in an action for money had and received, before an account has been settled and decree made by the Court of Common Pieas. So, previously to the settlement of an account in the Orphans’ Court, an action of assumpsit will not lie by the ward against his guardian…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Gray v. BellSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1835
- Carl v. WonderSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1836
- Vanarsdale v. RichardsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1836