Shoemaker v. Keely
Supreme Court of the United States
THIS was an action on the case, for deceiving the bankrupt, in the sale of a quantity of Claret; and the question submitted for decision to the Court was,—whether such an action could be maintained by the assignee ? observed, that the bankrupt was really indebted to his client; but that in this form of action he would be deprived of the advantage of a set off; and they contended that the action would not lie. The 7 sect. of the bankrupt act (2 Vol. Dall.
Read the full summary
THIS was an action on the case, for deceiving the bankrupt, in the sale of a quantity of Claret; and the question submitted for decision to the Court was,—whether such an action could be maintained by the assignee ? observed, that the bankrupt was really indebted to his client; but that in this form of action he would be deprived of the advantage of a set off; and they contended that the action would not lie. The 7 sect. of the bankrupt act (2 Vol. Dall. Edit. p. 371.) gives to the Commissioners a power only “ to assign or dispose of all the debts due to, and for the benefit of, the…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court:
—It is plain, that the action, in its present form, cannot be supported. Under the act of Assembly, nothing but debts are assigned, or assignable; and torts must be considered as the mere personal concern of the bankrupt.
Let Judgment be entered for the defendant.
2Cited by22 opinions
- Fulton v. PhiladelphiaSupreme Court of the United States · 2021
- State ex rel. Weiss v. District Board of School District No. EightWisconsin Supreme Court · 1890
- People ex rel. Stanton v. Tioga C. P.New York Supreme Court · 1837
- Donahoe v. RichardsSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1854
- State v. YoderWisconsin Supreme Court · 1971
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.