Cunningham v. Garvin
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
In error from the Common Pleas of Adams. Assumpsit for money had and received, and case stated in the nature of a special verdict. The facts were these: D. Scott was a contractor with the Baltimore and Ohio R. R. Company.
Read the full summary
In error from the Common Pleas of Adams. Assumpsit for money had and received, and case stated in the nature of a special verdict. The facts were these: D. Scott was a contractor with the Baltimore and Ohio R. R. Company. Having performed a large part of the work, and being indebted, he made an assignment, on the 22d May, 1841, to Cooper, of his interest in the contract, and in the money retained by tbe company for work already done, in trust, to pay certain of his creditors, to the extent of $6,100. On the 21st June, 1841, Scott transferred his contract with the company to Garvin, the…
1Opinion of the CourtBeil, J.
Doubtless, the order of July, 1841, drawn by the cestuis que trust of the fund, in fa-^sur of Garvin, was an irrevocable equitable assignment pro tanto, though unassented to by-the drawe^, provided it originated in a sufficient consideration: Row v. Dawson, 1 Ves. Sr. 332; Yeates v. Grover, 1 Ves. Jr. 280; Tibbitts v. George, 5 A. & E. 107; Alexander v. Adams, 1 Strobh. S. C. R. 47; Dickenson v. Phillips, 1 Barb. 454; Nesmith v. Drum, 8 W. & S. 9. To ascertain whether a consideration existed, a glance at the facts is necessary. By the terms of Scott’s contract with the railroad company, the…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Clark v. HerringSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1812
- Nesmith v. DrumSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1844
- Dickenson v. PhillipsNew York Supreme Court · 1847
- Greeves v. M'Allister, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County1809
3Cited by1 opinion
- Brightly v. McAleerSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1897