Cranston v. Philadelphia Insurance
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
r | ^HIS was a scire facias against the defendants, as garnishees of Nicholas Duff,\ in which a case was stated for the opinion of the Court, in substance as follows: On the 20th of September 1802, Nicholas Duff as principaj an¿ George BarnwelL as surety, entered into a bond at r 7 ° 1 J 1 the custom house of New Tori, for duties, amounting to 596 d0Hars 73 cents, payable in six months, which Barnwell * * % / ■** . , . paid on the 10th 01 May 1803, with interest, making 601…
Read the full summary
r | ^HIS was a scire facias against the defendants, as garnishees of Nicholas Duff,\ in which a case was stated for the opinion of the Court, in substance as follows: On the 20th of September 1802, Nicholas Duff as principaj an¿ George BarnwelL as surety, entered into a bond at r 7 ° 1 J 1 the custom house of New Tori, for duties, amounting to 596 d0Hars 73 cents, payable in six months, which Barnwell * * % / ■** . , . paid on the 10th 01 May 1803, with interest, making 601 dollars 68 cents. _ _ . > Dujfs being owner of the brig Betsy, chartered her for a voyage from New York to cape…
1Opinion of the Court
Tilghman C. J.
Two questions are submitted to the Court on the case stated. 1st, Whether there is legal evidence of debts due from Duff to Barnwell, and Jones and Clinch, or either of them, and a bona fide assignment of the policy. 2d, Whether the plaintiffs are intitled in law or equity, to be repaid the premiums out of the funds in the hands of the defendants?
1. Upon an examination of the depositions and documents exhibited in the cause, I am of opinion that there is legal evidence of debts due from Duff to Barnwell, and to Jones and Clinch, and also of a bona fide assignment of the policy.
2.…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Randel v. BrownSupreme Court of the United States · 1844