Searcy v. Pannell

CourtNew York District Court
Writing for the CourtMcNAIRY
Citation3 Tenn. 110
PartiesSEARCY v. PANNELL et al.
Decision Date31 May 1812

3 Tenn. 110

SEARCY
v.
PANNELL et al.

District Court,
D. Tennessee.

May Term, 1812.


[Reuben] Searcy filed his bill, praying for relief against a judgment obtained at law against him by the defendant Pannell. The bill stated that the complainant, with one Solomon Walker as his security, had executed their bond to a certain Francis Bassier, in his lifetime, for five thousand pounds of tobacco; that after the execution of said bond he paid to the said Bassier fifty-five pounds in part discharge thereof, and took Bassier's receipt; that the complainant then moved to the state of Kentucky, and that afterwards a suit was brought by the defendant Burton, as administrator of Bassier, who had in the mean time died, against the defendant Pannell, who was then the administrator of Solomon Walker, the security, and a judgment was recovered in the Granville county court for the full amount thereof; that after this be returned to North Carolina, where these several transactions happened, and upon being informed thereof, he executed his bond to Pannell for the same, which bond is the foundation of the action at law. The complainant then states that at the time he executed the bond to Pannell he informed Pannell that a part of the money had been paid, whereupon Pannell agreed that he would give a credit on said bond for all that Searcy could produce Bassier's receipt for. The bill then charges a fraud and collusion between Burton and Pannell to defraud Searcy, and that by such means the judgment against Pannell was alone obtained. Burton is made a defendant. Burton, in his answer, denies all fraud and collusion, and avers that the whole amount recovered against Pannell was justly due. He also states that the receipts procured by the complainant from Bassier applied to an open account, and not to the bond for tobacco. Pannell neswers that Searcy did represent to him, at the time he executed the bond, that some payments had been made to Bassier, and that he agreed he would give Searcy a credit on the bond for whatever sum he could procure the written assumpsit of Burton to refund; and he positively denies that any other agreement was made. He then denies that he had been guilty of any fraud, and stated he had used every exertion, such as employing counsel, etc., to defend the suit brought by Burton, but without effect. One witness was introduced on the part of the complainant at the hearing of the cause for the purpose of proving that Pannell had been guilty of a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 practice notes
  • Biddle v. State, 36
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Arkansas
    • December 10, 1917
    ...for appellant. 1. Instructions Nos. 9, 5 and 6 should have been given in full as asked. They correctly state the law. 109 Ark. 478; 3 Tenn. 110; 25 Fla. 517; 172 S.W. 1010; 93 Id. 409; 92 Id. 205; 59 Id. 132. 2. Sam Peniger should have been permitted to testify as to character of deceased. ......
1 cases
  • Biddle v. State, 36
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Arkansas
    • December 10, 1917
    ...for appellant. 1. Instructions Nos. 9, 5 and 6 should have been given in full as asked. They correctly state the law. 109 Ark. 478; 3 Tenn. 110; 25 Fla. 517; 172 S.W. 1010; 93 Id. 409; 92 Id. 205; 59 Id. 132. 2. Sam Peniger should have been permitted to testify as to character of deceased. ......

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