Jordan v. Sharlock

• Decision Date: 04 June 1878
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court
• Parties: Jordan <I>et al.,</I> Assignees, <I>versus</I> Sharlock.

84 Pa. 366

Jordan et al., Assignees, versus Sharlock.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

May 22, 1877.

June 4, 1878.

May 22d 1877.

Before AGNEW, C. J., SHARSWOOD, MERCUR, GORDON, PAXSON, WOODWARD and STERRETT, JJ.

Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin county: Of May Term 1877, No. 102.

Hall & Jordan, for plaintiff in error.—The right to set off the deposit in payment of the note would have existed had the note been due prior to the date of the assignment, but not being then due the right is denied. The assignment was a legal transfer of the insolvent's property, including the note in question, in trust for the payment of debts, just as the death of an insolvent debtor works a legal transfer of his personal estate in trust for the benefit of the creditors of such decedent.

This case is ruled by Bosler v. Exchange Bank, 4 Barr 32, and the appeal of the Farmers' and Mechanics' Bank, 12 Wright 57, and the principle of these cases is supported by Poorman v. Goswiler, 2 Watts 69, Beeler v. Turnpike Co., 2 Harris 162, and Singerly v. Fox, 25 P. F. Smith 112.

John H. Weiss, for defendant in error.—The assignee is the mere representative of the debtor and is bound where the latter would be bound. He is the mere hand of the assignor in the distribution of the fund and not the representative of the creditors: In re Fulton's Estate, 1 P. F. Smith 211. The assignees succeeded only to the rights and equities of the assignor, and as the defendant can set off this debt as against the assignor he can as against the assignees.

Chief Justice AGNEW delivered the opinion of the court, June 4th 1878.

In re Fulton's Estate, 1 P. F. Smith 211, it is said: "Perhaps nothing is better settled in this state by uniform and numerous decisions than this, that a voluntary assignee is the mere representative of the debtor, enjoying his rights only and no others; and is bound where he would be bound; that he is not the representative of the creditors, and is not clothed with their powers; that he is but a volunteer and not a bona fide purchaser for value." Many cases are cited for these propositions. Martin Sharlock made his note of $350, June 13th 1876, at ninety days, which the City Bank discounted and held on and before the maturity of the note. He had a running account of deposits in the bank before and during the running of the note, in which there was a balance due him September 6th 1876, of $395.50, the bank then being the holder of the note. The bank made a...