Howe & Cook v. Short

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania May 26, 1890

Howe & Cook v. Short, 135 Pa. 379 (Pa. 1890)

19 A. 1022; 1890 Pa. LEXIS 1190

Clabk, McCollum, Mitchell, Stebbett, Williams

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam:

By agreement of parties, trial by jury was dispensed with, and this case was submitted to the court below under the provisions of the act of April 22, 1874.

The only question presented by the specifications of error is whether the learned judge was right in refusing to allow defendant credit for $300 paid to Betsey Hoyt on November 12, 1881, for the purpose of obtaining her release. An examination of the learned judge’s findings of fact and conclusions of law has satisfied us that there was no error in rejecting -the evidence referred to in the first specification, nor in refusing to allow the credit which constitutes the' subject of complaint in the second specification of error.

Judgment affirmed.

Reference

Full Case Name: HOWE & COOK, TO USE v. ALFRED SHORT
Status: Published
Syllabus: (а) The two joint owners thereof transferred a productive oil-leasehold to a trustee to pay specific debts of the assignors, or to sell. One owner afterward transferred his interest in the same leasehold to a third person, by an assignment which was put on record. (б) After this second assignment, but without actual knowledge thereof, the trustee accepted an order drawn upon him by both assignors on the day the second assignment was made, in favor of another creditor, and payment being afterwards refused, suit was brought thereon: 1. In such ease, the trustee having taken possession at once under the transfer to him, the second assignment did not affect his title, nor justify payment by Mm to tbe second assignee for the release of Ms intei’est, as against the holder of the order accepted by the trustee.