Licey v. Licey
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Dec. 28. Licey and others, administrators of Fretz, brought this action of debt, and declared on a bond, the proferí of which was excused by averring possession unlawfully obtained by the obligor, who had torn off the seal. At the trial before Krause, P. J., the plaintiffs gave in evidence the bond, of which the signature and seal had been torn off. The defendant proved admissions by the obligee that she had given the bond to the obligor to do what he pleased with it.
Read the full summary
Dec. 28. Licey and others, administrators of Fretz, brought this action of debt, and declared on a bond, the proferí of which was excused by averring possession unlawfully obtained by the obligor, who had torn off the seal. At the trial before Krause, P. J., the plaintiffs gave in evidence the bond, of which the signature and seal had been torn off. The defendant proved admissions by the obligee that she had given the bond to the obligor to do what he pleased with it. The court, on the authority of 2 Kent’s Com. 439, was of opinion an assignment, or transfer, actually executed, was essential,…
1Opinion of the CourtGibson, C. J.
There is a ground on which, however, the cause was not ruled below, that is fatal to the judgment. If the defendant’s evidence be true, the bond in suit was given up by the obligee to be cancelled, and it was cancelled. Was not the debt, therefore, gone ? There is a plain and well-founded common-law distinction, in this particular, between things which lie in livery and things which lie in grant. As the former pass by force of the livery, of which the deed is only evidence, they cannot be revested by destroying the instrument, for a right can be dissolved only by the means which created it;…
2Cited by10 opinions
- Commonwealth v. CromptonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1890
- Ertel v. McCloskeySuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1950
- Henson v. HensonTennessee Supreme Court · 1924
- Carr v. Southern Pac. Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1942
- Kaufmann v. Commissioner of Internal RevenueCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1930
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.