Cochran v. M'Teague
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
ERROR to the Common Pleas of Delaware county. Assumpsit to May Term 1843, No. 10, brought by Daniel M’Teague for the use of William Belt, and subsequently marked for the use of John Bouvier, against Isaac E. Cochran and others, administrators of John Cochran, deceased.
Read the full summary
ERROR to the Common Pleas of Delaware county. Assumpsit to May Term 1843, No. 10, brought by Daniel M’Teague for the use of William Belt, and subsequently marked for the use of John Bouvier, against Isaac E. Cochran and others, administrators of John Cochran, deceased. The plaintiff claimed under the following promissory note and agreement: “ I promise to pay Daniel M’Teague or bearer $200, if I get the contract of the Catholic church at Chester; one hundred to be paid on demand, the other hundred to be paid three months after date. John Cochran. And I do further agree to pay Daniel M’Teague…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Sergeant, J.
This case seems to fall within the principles decided in Patterson v. Reed, (7 Watts & Serg. 144), and in the previous cases of Leiper v. Peirce, (6 Watts & Serg. 555), and Post v. Avery (5 Ibid. 509). A few months before the commencement of the suit, M’Teague, alleging a claim against Cochran upon a note not negotiable and a contract for wages, assigns his interest to Belt, who then brings suit in M’Teague’s name for his own use. The defendant sets up a partnership, and to repel this and procure a verdict, M’Teague is produced as a…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Patterson v. ReedSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1844
- Leiper v. PeirceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1844