Marshall v. Franklin Bank of Washington
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Error to tbe Common Pleas of Washington county. This was a scire facias at the suit of the bank against George A. Creacraft and Thomas Carson, drawers, and John Marshall and Adam Carson, endorsers. In 1846, Creacraft and Thomas Carson were extensively engaged in the bacon and lard business, and the defendant Marshall, with others, had endorsed for them largely in the bank.
Read the full summary
Error to tbe Common Pleas of Washington county. This was a scire facias at the suit of the bank against George A. Creacraft and Thomas Carson, drawers, and John Marshall and Adam Carson, endorsers. In 1846, Creacraft and Thomas Carson were extensively engaged in the bacon and lard business, and the defendant Marshall, with others, had endorsed for them largely in the bank. In the fall of that year, being unable to meet their liabilities, they, together with their endorsers, confessed five judgments to the bank, amounting to $24,200. The defendant Marshall, being the first endorser on two…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Knox, J.
It is conceded that John Marshall, who took defence to the scire facias, was a surety, and that George A. Creacraft, the person whose deposition was offered and rejected, was one of the principal debtors. The defence was, substantially, that the judgment had been paid, and it was to prove payment that the principal debtor was offered as a witness. Upon the failure of this defence, the principal was, doubtless, liable to the surety, not only for the principal debt recovered, but also for the costs, and this according to the cases of the Bank of…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Smith v. ThorneSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1839
3Cited by3 opinions
- Patterson v. HughesSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1912
- Amalgamated Cotton Garment & Allied Industries Fund v. CampolongSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1983
- Iams v. Hazel-Atlas Glass Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1916