Freiberg v. Stoddard
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 442, Jan. T., 1894, by plaintiffs, Joseph Freiberg and Abraham Freiberg, trading as J. & A. Freiberg, from order of C. P. Luzerne Co., Oct. T., 1893, No. 2, dismissing bill in equity. Bill in equity to restrain assignee for benefit of creditors from paying out money.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 442, Jan. T., 1894, by plaintiffs, Joseph Freiberg and Abraham Freiberg, trading as J. & A. Freiberg, from order of C. P. Luzerne Co., Oct. T., 1893, No. 2, dismissing bill in equity. Bill in equity to restrain assignee for benefit of creditors from paying out money. The facts appear by the opinion of the court below, as follows, by Rice, P. J. : “ On Jan. 25, 1893, the plaintiffs drew a draft to their order on M. Rosenbluth, for 1123.73, at one day sight, and on Jan. 27th drew a similar draft for 1208.14 on Sol. Hirsch, and indorsed the same : ‘ Pay to the order of F. V.…
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam,
We concur in the conclusions reached by the learned master and the court below. If at the time of the assignment the plaintiffs’ notes had been found by the assignee uncollected, he should have returned them. If a draft or bond or a specific package of money received in paj^ment of the notes had been found among the assets coming into his hands, it should have been turned over to the plaintiffs. But neither the notes, nor any security nor sum of money received in payment of them came into his hands. He holds nothing which he or the plaintiffs can identify with the notes or trace as…
2Cited by21 opinions
- Standard Oil Co. of Ky. v. HawkinsCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1896
- Cameron v. Carnegie Trust Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1928
- Webb v. NewhallSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1922
- Bellevue State Bank v. CoffinIdaho Supreme Court · 1912
- Lansdowne Bank and Trust Co.'s CaseSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1936
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.