Downing v. Kintzing
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
THE plaintiff brought this action against the defendants, as assignees of Rhoads and Perit, to obtain reimbursement out of the funds in their hands, for the amount of several custom house bonds, which as surety, he had' paid to the United States.
Read the full summary
THE plaintiff brought this action against the defendants, as assignees of Rhoads and Perit, to obtain reimbursement out of the funds in their hands, for the amount of several custom house bonds, which as surety, he had' paid to the United States. The facts proved at the trial, which came on before the Chief Justice, on the 21st February, 1816, so far as they are necessary to introduce the opinions of the judges, were as follows: On the 6th August, 1806, Rhoads and Perit executed an assignment to the house of Guest and Bancker, which recited that the latter had already advanced their notes to…
1Opinion of the Court
Tilgiiman C. J.
The defendants are general assignees for the benefit of the creditors of Rhoads and Peril, under- a deed of assignment, dated 16 May, 1807. The plaintiff, having been security for Rhoads and Peril, in several custom house bonds, which he paid, claims a reimbursement out of the funds in the hands of the defendants. The plaintiff, after payment -of the bonds, stands in the place of the United States,-and is therefore entitled to a preference, unless he has done some act to deprive himself of it. The defendants in*335sisted at the trial, on several acts, by which the plaintiff lost…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- M'Allister v. MarshallSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1814
- Garey v. Union BankU.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia · 1826
- M'Lean v. RankinNew York Supreme Court · 1808
3Cited by2 opinions
- Lichtenthaler v. ThompsonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1825
- Burtch v. HoggeMichigan Court of Chancery · 1839