Carlisle Bank v. Barnett
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
ERROR to the Common Pleas of Perry county. The Carlisle Bank against George Barnett. Scire facias to revive a judgment. The parties agreed to the following facts, to be considered in the nature of a special verdict, and which were submitted to the court upon written arguments: John D. Creigh gave a note to the Carlisle Bank, dated 27th December 1837, for $2500, payable 60 days after date, with George Barnett, James Marshall, James M’Kee, and John Junkin, sureties— all…
Read the full summary
ERROR to the Common Pleas of Perry county. The Carlisle Bank against George Barnett. Scire facias to revive a judgment. The parties agreed to the following facts, to be considered in the nature of a special verdict, and which were submitted to the court upon written arguments: John D. Creigh gave a note to the Carlisle Bank, dated 27th December 1837, for $2500, payable 60 days after date, with George Barnett, James Marshall, James M’Kee, and John Junkin, sureties— all jointly and severally bound. A bond of the same date was given by Creigh to the bank, as collateral security, in the penalty…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Sergeant, J.
The defendants being bound to the plaintiffs for the whole debt, could be discharged from it only by payment or release. There was clearly no'payment, for the sum received fell short of the debt. Was there a release, or anything equivalent? It seems that there was an appropriation of a sum of money with the consent of the plaintiffs as well as of the defendants, which, had it been available to the plaintiffs, would have been payment; but from circumstances not under the control of either party, it was not available, but remained locked up…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Yeatman's AppealSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1883
- Riffle v. HusteadCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1925