Law v. Mills
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Error to the Common Pleas of Mercer county. This was the case of a scire facias, by Andrew Law against Mills and Shepherd, as garnishees, on a judgment in foreign attachment issued by Law against Joy and Webster, in which proceeding judgment was had against Joy and Webster on 21st February, 1851, in the Common Pleas of Mercer county, Pennsylvania, for $847.10 and costs.
Read the full summary
Error to the Common Pleas of Mercer county. This was the case of a scire facias, by Andrew Law against Mills and Shepherd, as garnishees, on a judgment in foreign attachment issued by Law against Joy and Webster, in which proceeding judgment was had against Joy and Webster on 21st February, 1851, in the Common Pleas of Mercer county, Pennsylvania, for $847.10 and costs. Joy and Webster resided in Buffalo, state of New York, and had been engaged in mining coal in Mercer county, Pennsylvania. They became indebted to the plaintiff, for carrying their coal from the coal-bank to the canal. Under…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court, was delivered by
Bell, J.
The only objection made against the assignment of the 17th November, 1849, executed by Joy and Webster, is that it is in contravention of our law, which forbids all attempts by an insolvent debtor to prefer one or more of his creditors before others. But our statute does not entirely invalidate assignments in trust for creditors, directing preferences. It simply enacts, that such a direction is to be disregarded, leaving the assignment to operate for the equal benefit of all the creditors. Yet were this otherwise, it is settled by Speed v. May…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Fisher v. Pacific Mut. Life Ins.Mississippi Supreme Court · 1916
- Bacon, Baldwin & Co. v. Jos. Horne & Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1889
- Schoenwald v. McDonaldDistrict Court, D. Alaska · 1916
- DeTurck v. WoelfelSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1902