Riddle v. Etting et al.

• Decision Date: 01 January 1858
• Citation: 32 Pa. 412
• Parties: Riddle versus Etting et al.
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

32 Pa. 412

RiddleversusEtting et al.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

ERROR to the Common Pleas of Delaware county.

Broomall, for the plaintiff in error.

J. R. Morris, for the defendants in error.

The opinion of the court was delivered by STRONG, J.

This judgment cannot be sustained.When the attachment was served upon Riddle, the garnishee, he was in no sense the debtor of Hannum & Price.He had paid his debt, and been discharged, before the attachment was laid.It matters not, that payment was not made in money.He had assumed an obligation to the agent of Paul & Co. at the instance of Price, who had been one of the firm of Hannum & Price, and the assumption had been accepted as payment.How then could Hannum & Price, after that, recover from him the price of the boiler?And if they could not, how can the attaching creditors of Hannum & Price?They stand in the position of their debtors.In a certain sense, they are equitable assignees of whatever claim their debtors had against Riddle.

It is no answer to this, to say that Price had no authority to take a note from Riddle and hand it over to Paul & Co., or to Mr. Broomall, their agent.If this be admitted, he still had a right to receive payment from Riddle.The firm of Hannum & Price had been dissolved, it is true; but, notwithstanding the dissolution a debtor of the firm was safe in paying his debt to any one of the members of the firm.He could not, indeed, combine with one to defraud the other partner; but fraud...