Lloyd v. McNamara
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Error to thé Common Pleas of Blair county. There were counter writs of error in this case. It was an action of assumpsit by Thomas McNamara v. Gr. L. Lloyd, brought to March Term, 1848. Defendant plead non assumpsit and payment, with leave, &c.; and non assumpsit infra sex annos, set-off, with leave, &c. The plaintiff replied non solvit, and that the defendant did, within six years before the commencement of the suit, promise, &c.
Read the full summary
Error to thé Common Pleas of Blair county. There were counter writs of error in this case. It was an action of assumpsit by Thomas McNamara v. Gr. L. Lloyd, brought to March Term, 1848. Defendant plead non assumpsit and payment, with leave, &c.; and non assumpsit infra sex annos, set-off, with leave, &c. The plaintiff replied non solvit, and that the defendant did, within six years before the commencement of the suit, promise, &c. On 11th April, 1832, McNamara & Lloyd, being partners in the iron business, at Hannah Furnace, in Centre county, entered into a contract with Messrs. McCullough,…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court, filed in was delivered by
Gibson, J.
The point raised on the soundness of the cause ■of action, according to the plaintiff’s own showing, supersedes the necessity of considering any other. The covenant implied from the assignment of a bond, is not a guarantee, but “ that the assignee should receive the money from the obligor to his own use ; and if the obligee should receive it, then, that the assignor ■should be answerable over for it.” The rule thus laid down in Cummings v. Lynn, 1 Dall. 449, has never been shaken. True ■it is, the contract of assignment, like any…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Quesnel v. MussySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1789