Rhoads v. Megonigal
| Decision Date | 01 September 1845 |
| Citation | 2 Pa. 39 |
| Parties | RHOADS v. MEGONIGAL. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Armstrong, for plaintiff in error.—The note, being pawned, was subject to levy and sale like any other chattel, and being deposited for an indefinite time, it was the duty of the pawnee to give notice to the owner; Delisle v. Priestman, 1 Brown. 176; and not having done so, the title passed as in a sale by the agent. 2 Dow. & Ry. 270; Chalmers v. Pope, 2 Barn. & Ald. 695. The remedy is against the pawnee for delivering, Owen's Rep. 123; Anon., 2 Salk. 522; Coggs v. Bernard, 3 Salk. 268; Thompson v. Patrick, 4 Watts, 414. Nor was there any violation of his duty; and this amounted to an equitable assignment. United States v. Vaughan, 3 Bin. 294; Caldwell v. Vance, Id. 400, cited; Croser v. Craig, 1 W. C. C. Rep. 424.
Nothing was in fact attached in the hands of the pawnee; he did not hold a debt but a chattel, an evidence of the debt of a third person. To enable the court to render judgment, the specific goods must be returned. Ninian v. Ward, 1 Watts & Serg. 82; Barns v. Billington, 1 W. C. C. Rep. 29.
The knowledge of Rhoads without dissent was sufficient to estop him. Epley v. Witherow, 7 Watts, 163.
The plea was bad, as to defend himself a party must show he has been compelled to pay the money; Lowry v. Lumberman's Bank, 2 Watts & Serg. 214; Irvine v. Lumberman's Bank, 2 Watts & Serg. 190; and the plea is only in abatement, Chenango v. Jones, W. C. C. Rep. 359.
Nicholls, contrà.—A note is not the subject of levy and sale; it has been frequently decided that such things cannot be seized, any more than bank notes could, before the statute.
That a bond or note cannot be levied on and sold at judicial sale as a chattel, is too plain to admit of argument. But it is said that it was delivered to the constable for that purpose, by John Cannon, with whom it had been deposited as collateral security for a debt owing to him by Adam Rhoads. But what authority had he to deliver it to the officer to satisfy the debt of another? It was not put into his hands for that purpose, but as a collateral security only. He has no express authority, as must be conceded; and what implication can arise from his character of pledgee, we cannot comprehend. That Rhoads gave no express consent, is granted; but it is contended, that as he was present at the constable's sale, and did not give notice of his dissent, his right became vested in Cannon. But he was not bound to give notice, for Cannon was just as competent to judge of the right of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Aarons v. Pub. Serv. Bldg. & Loan Ass'n
...(12 PS §§ 2265, 2268). At common law, a chose in action could not be taken in execution. Heath v. Knapp, 10 Watts, 405; Rhoads v. Megonigal, 2 Pa. 39. A statute was required to enable a judgment creditor to proceed against such property. The right was granted by the Act of June 16, 1836, su......
-
Aarons v. Public Service Building & Loan Association
...1836, P.L. 755, sections 35 and 38. At common law, a chose in action could not be taken in execution: Heath v. Knapp, 10 W. 405; Rhoads v. Megonigal, 2 Pa. 39. A statute required to enable a judgment creditor to proceed against such property. The right was granted by the Act of June 16, 183......
-
The Tradesmen's Bldg. & Loan Asso. v. Maher
...and sold under a fieri facias is well settled: Dundas v. Dutens, 1 Ves. Jr. 196; Rickert v. Madeira, 1 Rawle 325. In the case of Rhoads v. Megonigal, 2 Pa. 39, it was said that is too plain to admit of argument, and it was there held that such a sale and delivery thereunder passed no title.......
-
International Coal Mining Co. v. Pennsylvania R. Co.
...971. In Pennsylvania, a chose in action cannot be taken in execution and sold on a fi. fa. Troubat & Haly's Practice, Sec. 975; Rhoads v. Megonigal, 2 Pa. 39; Tradesmen's B. & L. Ass'n v. Maher, Pa.Super.Ct. 340. Prior to Act June 16, 1836, Sec. 32 (P.L. 767), a judgment creditor had no mea......