Farmers and Mechanics Bank of Pennsylvania v. Smith

Decision Date12 February 1821
Citation19 U.S. 131,5 L.Ed. 224,6 Wheat. 131
PartiesFARMERS AND MECHANICS' BANK OF PENNSYLVANIA v. SMITH
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

ERROR to the Supreme Court of the State of Pennsylvania.

This was an action of assumpsit brought by the plaintiffs in error, in the Supreme Court of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, against the defendant in error, as endorser of a promissory note, made at Philadelphia by one Edward Shoemaker, on the 6th of June, 1811, for 2,500 dollars, payable in six months after date, and endorsed by the defendant to the plaintiffs at the same place, on the same day. The declaration was in the usual form; and the defendant pleaded, that on the 8th day of September, 1812, he was a citizen of the said Commonwealth, residing in the city and county of Philadelphia, and having resided there for more than two years before that time; and that being such citizen and resident, he, the defendant, in conformity to the act of the Legislature of the said Commonwealth, passed on the 13th of March, 1812, entitled, 'An act for the relief of insolvent debtors residing in the city and county of Philadelphia,' did, on the said 8th day of September, 1812, at the city of Philadelphia aforesaid, present his petition to Charles Jared Ingersoll, &c. the Commissioners appointed under and by virtue of said act, &c. in which petition, he, the said petitioner, did state his belief, that he was insolvent, and did pray that he might be permitted to assign all his estate and property for the benefit of his creditors, and be discharged by virtue of said act. Whereupon the said Commissioners did appoint Mathew Randall, &c. to be curators, to whom the defendant did thereupon forthwith assign all his estate, real and personal, in conformity with the provisions of the said act. And the said Commissioners did then and there appoint the second day of October, 1812, aforesaid, for the hearing the defendant and his creditors, of which due notice was given according to the provisions of the act aforesaid. Upon which day, &c. the said petitioner did exhibit a true account and list of all his creditors, and moneys due, and to become due, and owing to them respectively by him; and, also, an inventory and account of his estate, real and personal, and of all interest of him, the said petitioner, either present or contingent, in any thing of value, and of all books, vouchers, and securities relating to the same. And thereupon the said Charles Jared Ingersoll, one of the said Commissioners, did administer to him, the said petitioner, the oath required by the said law, which was duly taken by him, the said petitioner, according to the requisition of the said law. And, afterwards, &c. the said Commissioners did assign to Chandler Price, &c., who were duly nominated and appointed assignees, all the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
20 cases
  • Home Building Loan Ass v. Blaisdell
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • January 8, 1934
    ...108 U.S. 143, 151, 2 S.Ct. 408, 27 L.Ed. 682. 10 See, in addition to cases cited in the text, the following: Farmers' & Mechanics' Bank v. Smith, 6 Wheat. 131, 5 L.Ed. 224; Piqua Bank v. Knoop, 16 How. 369, 14 L.Ed. 977; Dodge v. Woolsey, 18 How. 331, 15 L.Ed. 401; Jefferson Branch Bank v. ......
  • Eustis v. Bolles
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • March 6, 1888
    ...903;Kimberly v. Ely, 6 Pick. 440;Blanchard v. Russell, 13 Mass. 1, 16, 17;Sturges v. Crowningshield, 4 Wheat. 122;Bank v. Smith, 6 Wheat. 131;Ogden v. Saunders, 12 Wheat. 213;In re Wendell, 19 Johns. 153;Salters v. Tobias, 3 Paige, 338;Bryar v. Willcocks, 3 Cow. 164;Hundly v. Chaney, 65 Cal......
  • Kirkman v. Bird
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Utah
    • May 14, 1900
    ......Laurer, 89 Iowa 322;. Shelly v. Smith, 59 Iowa 453; Brown v. Hebard, 20 Wis. 326; McCoy v. ...36; Gunn. v. Barry, 82 U.S. 610; Germania Sav. Bank v. Village. Suspension Bridge, 54 N.E. 35; Singer Mfg. ... of agriculture, the tools of [22 Utah 115] mechanics,. necessary household furniture for the use of the family, ......
  • Commonwealth v. Haynes
    • United States
    • Superior Court of Pennsylvania
    • April 22, 2015
    ...(citing Farmers' & Mechanics' Bank v. Smith, 3 Serg. & Rawle 63, 1817 WL 1771, *5 (Pa.1817), reversed on other grounds at 19 U.S. 131, 6 Wheat. 131, 5 L.Ed. 224 (1821) (emphases omitted), and Firing v. Kephart, 466 Pa. 560, 353 A.2d 833, 835–836 (Pa.1976) ). In performing this examination, ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT