Estate of Davis
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
APPEAL. This was an appeal from a decree of the Court of Common Pleas for the City and County of Philadelphia, in the matter of the accounts of Lewis Desauque and Thomas Taylor, assignees of Nathaniel Davis and Francis Desauque.
Read the full summary
APPEAL. This was an appeal from a decree of the Court of Common Pleas for the City and County of Philadelphia, in the matter of the accounts of Lewis Desauque and Thomas Taylor, assignees of Nathaniel Davis and Francis Desauque. In the Court below the accounts were referred to auditors, who made a report, stating the material circumstances of the casé, as follows: “ The objections taken by the opposing creditors were as follows : 1. That the assignees were not entitled to claim an allowance for the per céntage claimed by them in the shape of guarantee and discount on the sales of stock at…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Rogers, J.
It is generally true, that the giving a note for a preexisting debt, does not discharge the original cause of action, unlesit is agreed that the note shall be taken in payment. 12 Peters, 59. 6 Cranch, 264. And although it is decided in Evans v. Drummond, (4 Esp. 90,) that taking a security from one of several partners, jqint makers of a promissory note or acceptors of a bill, will discharge the other co-partners, yet in a subsequent case, Bedford v. Deakin, (2 B. & A. 210,) it is held, that where one of three partners, after a dissolution of…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Sheehy v. Mandeville & JamessonSupreme Court of the United States · 1810
- Bradstreet v. ThomasSupreme Court of the United States · 1838
3Cited by23 opinions
- Bowyer v. KnappWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1879
- Hayward v. BurkeIllinois Supreme Court · 1894
- Durant v. . PiersonNew York Court of Appeals · 1891
- Campbell v. FloydSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1893
- Houser v. IrvineSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1842
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.