Watson v. Bagaley

• Decision Date: 27 October 1849
• Citation: 12 Pa. 164
• Parties: THOMAS WATSON and JOHN McCAHAN, Garnishees of WILLIAM SEATOWN, <I>v.</I> BAGALEY & SMITH.
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

Page 164

12 Pa. 164

THOMAS WATSON and JOHN McCAHAN, Garnishees of WILLIAM SEATOWN, v. BAGALEY & SMITH.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

October 27, 1849.

Oct. 27.

ERROR to the Common Pleas of Washington.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Acheson and McKennan, for the plaintiff in error.

1. This letter of attorney has none of the formal or substantial attributes of a voluntary assignment, which is an absolute and indefeasible conveyance of the subject-matter of it, transferring the actual and legal ownership to the assignee: Ridgway v. Stewart, 4 W. & S. 392; 2 Blackstone's Com. 326. This being a mere letter of attorney, with instructions to the agents, it was not necessary to record it; as is shown by Ridgway v. Stewart, and by Blakey's Appeal, 7 Barr, 449. See also § 4, Act 16th April, 1849, 2d Dunlop, 1198. This, then, being an arrangement, bonâ fide, for the benefit of particular creditors, in form not expressly prohibited, is not unlawful in its object.

2. The directions in the letter are an equitable appropriation of the moneys to be collected under it: 2 Story's Eq. Jur. § 1047, and the receipt of it by the plaintiffs in error made that appropriation irrevocable; they becoming thereby trustees for the enumerated creditors, and those creditors acquiring an interest in the trust, which could not be affected by an attachment: Sharpless v. Welsh, 4 Dall. 278; Caldwell v. The Garnishees of Vance, &c., as stated by Justice Yeates, in U. S. v. Vaughan, 3 Binn. 400.

Gow, for defendants in error.—The power was an assignment in trust, which became void on not being recorded: Act 24th March, 1818, Purdon, 89; and therefore the attachment was valid. According to Sharpless v. Welsh, and the cases in 1 Atkyns, 124, and 2 Atkyns, 207, the plaintiffs in error were trustees for creditors, in whom an interest vested, indefeasible by Seatown. This instrument was an assignment by an insolvent of all his property for the benefit of all his creditors. The Act of 1818 is to be construed in suppression of the mischief: Englebert v. Blaujot, 2 Wh. 240; Flanagin v. Wetherill, 5 Wh. 287. If this instrument is a mere defeasible letter of attorney, the property remained in Seatown, and was liable to the foreign attachment.

The opinion of this Court was delivered by

GIBSON, C. J.

An assignment of a chose in action or of a fund need not be by any particular form of words, or particular form of instrument. It leaves the legal ownership and consequent right of action in the assignor; and it has therefore been treated as a declaration of trust for the assignee, or an...