Horbach v. Huey
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
ERROR to Westmoreland county. This was an action of assumpsit by Abraham Horbach against John Huey, for money had and received. James Moorhead, Silas Moore and the plaintiff had been partners in a line of stages, for whom the defendant kept a stage-office and received money, for which this action was brought.
Read the full summary
ERROR to Westmoreland county. This was an action of assumpsit by Abraham Horbach against John Huey, for money had and received. James Moorhead, Silas Moore and the plaintiff had been partners in a line of stages, for whom the defendant kept a stage-office and received money, for which this action was brought. The stock on that part of the road where the defendant lived, belonged to the plaintiff; and upon the settlement of the accounts of the firm, the money due by the defendant was ordered to be paid to the plaintiff; and upon his refusal to pay it, this action was brought. The court below…
1Per curiam
—The money originally belonged to all the members of the company, and was consequently received to their use. Can they change the original relation of debtor and creditor without the debtor’s consent, and transfer their separate interests by assignment, so as to consolidate them in one of them? It is said that such a trans*456fer is an assignment, not of a chose in action, but of the money as a chattel; and that the resulting promise follows the nature of the ownership. That would, however, require the implication of a new promise at every transfer, for which we have no authority in the books.…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Mosgrove v. GoldenSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1882
- Pulling v. YeagerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1930
- McGehee v. DoughertySupreme Court of Alabama · 1846
- McConnell v. HallSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1915
- Bird v. FakeWisconsin Supreme Court · 1843
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.