Canby v. Ridgway
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
A SHORT time after the commencement of this action, 4- Canby, while in prison for debt, assigned, inter alia, his claim against the defendant to a certain Thomas Shaw, and then took the benefit of the insolvent laws. The action was after-wards carried on for the use of Shaw, who instructed counsel, and assisted at the trial, when a verdict passed for the defendant.
Read the full summary
A SHORT time after the commencement of this action, 4- Canby, while in prison for debt, assigned, inter alia, his claim against the defendant to a certain Thomas Shaw, and then took the benefit of the insolvent laws. The action was after-wards carried on for the use of Shaw, who instructed counsel, and assisted at the trial, when a verdict passed for the defendant. Upon these facts Hallowell, for the defendant, obtained a rule upon Shaw to shew cause why he should not pay the costs of suit.
1Opinion of the Court
Per. Curiam.
It is agreed that this suit was carried on in the name of the plaintiff for the use of Thomas Shaw, who obtained an assignment from the plaintiff shortly before he was discharged by the insolvent act. The court are of opinion that under these circumstances, Shaw may be considered as the substantial plaintiff, although his name does not appear on the record. The defendant might have pleaded that the action was for his use, and made a set-off of a debt due from him. Having used the process of the court for his exclusive benefit, it is reasonable that he should be answerable for the…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Bury v. HartmanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1818
- Hallstrom Development Co. v. LeeSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1982
- Gambers ex rel. Parry v. Robinson, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Dauphin County1854
- M'Hench v. M'HenchNew York Supreme Court · 1845
- McCullum v. CoxeSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1785