Shoemaker v. Keeley
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Case. The declaration consisted of two counts. The first stated, that “M. K. on the 12th May 1785, in consideration ‘ ‘ that the said J. M. before he became bankrupt, and before “the same day, had bargained, sold, and conveyed, to him “the said M. a certain tract of land, of the value of 75I. sit- ‘ ‘ uate in Brunswick township, in Berks county, he the said “ M. by his contract and agreement in writing, then and there “made with and delivered to the said J. M., assumed upon…
Read the full summary
Case. The declaration consisted of two counts. The first stated, that “M. K. on the 12th May 1785, in consideration ‘ ‘ that the said J. M. before he became bankrupt, and before “the same day, had bargained, sold, and conveyed, to him “the said M. a certain tract of land, of the value of 75I. sit- ‘ ‘ uate in Brunswick township, in Berks county, he the said “ M. by his contract and agreement in writing, then and there “made with and delivered to the said J. M., assumed upon “himself, and to the said J. before he became bankrupt, “promised that he would well and truly deliver to the said J.…
1Opinion of the Court
Per Cur.
The form of the action is decisive. The damages here are as uncertain as in any species of trespass, and cannot be assigned over by the commissioners. Matters of ■ mere tort were not contemplated by the legislature when they enacted the bankrupt law. The assignees might, if they had thought proper, have brought assumpsit, and then the defendant would have had the benefit of a set-off; but, the suit in its present form, cannot be supported.
Judgment for the defendant.
2Cited by1 opinion
- Whitaker v. GavitSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1847