M'Carty v. Emlen
Supreme Court of the United States
THIS action was brought to September term, 1789, by the plaintiff, as surviving partner of Cummings, to recover a debt due to the partnership. On the 4th of March 1793, the matters in dispute were referred; on the 21st of January 1795, there was a report filed, finding £165 os11. in favor of the plaintiff; and thereupon judgment nisi was entered.
Read the full summary
THIS action was brought to September term, 1789, by the plaintiff, as surviving partner of Cummings, to recover a debt due to the partnership. On the 4th of March 1793, the matters in dispute were referred; on the 21st of January 1795, there was a report filed, finding £165 os11. in favor of the plaintiff; and thereupon judgment nisi was entered. But, it appeared, that a Foreign Attachment had been issued, in the Philadelphia Common Pleas, returnable to March term 1793, in the name of Elizabeth Pringle, administratrix of John Pringle, against William M‘Carty, the present plaintiff, for a debt…
1Opinion of the Court
M‘Kean, Chief Justice.
The question in this cause, is—whether the debt due from Emlen to the late partnership of M'Carty & Cummings, has been secured by the foreign attachment, in favor of M'Carty's separate creditor, or can only be discharged by a payment to the surviving partner ?
Two objections are urged against the claim under the attachment:—1st. That the present action was commenced by the surviving partner, before the attachment was laid ; and a debt in suit is not attachable. 2d. That the attachment is brought to recover a debt due from M'Carty in his separate capacity ; whereas the…
2Cited by11 opinions
- Fithian v. New York & Erie RailroadSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1857
- Kase v. KaseSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1859
- Phillips v. CookNew York Supreme Court · 1840
- Morgan v. WatmoughSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1840
- Allstate Indemnity Company v. Broan-NuTone LLCDistrict Court, D. Arizona · 2025
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.