Burke ex rel. Harrison v. Allen
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
This suit was tried at bar last September term. It was debt on a bend dated 23d April 1796, conditioned for the payment of 337I. 10s. in six several instalments, which was informally assigned to Harrison, on some day previous to the 21st January 1797, and whereon the assignee had received from the obligor 50 dollars on the 2d February, and 150 dollars on the 24th April 1797. It was given in part consideration of certain lands sold and conveyed to Allen by Burke on the same…
Read the full summary
This suit was tried at bar last September term. It was debt on a bend dated 23d April 1796, conditioned for the payment of 337I. 10s. in six several instalments, which was informally assigned to Harrison, on some day previous to the 21st January 1797, and whereon the assignee had received from the obligor 50 dollars on the 2d February, and 150 dollars on the 24th April 1797. It was given in part consideration of certain lands sold and conveyed to Allen by Burke on the same 23d April 1796, but the deed for the premises was not recorded until the 12th February 1798. But prior to this date, on…
1ConcurrenceSmith, J.
I fully concur in the opinion delivered by my brother Yeates, though we have had no previous conference on the subject.
The dispute in this case, is in fact, between Thomas Harrison, to whom the bond, on which the action was brought, was equitably assigned before the 21st January 1797, and Elizabeth Kintzing, to whom the premises which Burke afterwards sold to the defendant, and for part payment of which this bond was given, had been previously mortgaged, viz. on the 8th October 1795, to secure the payment of 200I. Richard Allen is, or ought *357to be, a mere stakeholder. Is Harrison, the…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Jaques v. WeeksSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1838
- Lessee of Church v. ChurchSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1806