HOLLINGSWORTH v. HAMELIN, 1 U.S. 151 (1785)

U.S. Supreme Court

HOLLINGSWORTH v. HAMELIN, 1 U.S. 151 (1785)

1 U.S. 151 (Dall.)

Hollingsworth
v.
Hamelin

Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County.

December Term, 1785

The defendant having absconded, a domestic attachment issued against him at the suit of the plaintiff, and the auditors, under that process, having advertised that all persons, who had demands, should send in their accounts, in a reasonable time afterwards, made a dividend among the creditors that filed their claims. Previously to issuing the domestic attachment, the defendant was indebted to the Commonwealth for duties upon a cargo imported, and having given bond to Sharp Delany (who was the collector, but not so named in the bond,) a writ was thereupon issued against him, but was returned non est inventus. Of this, however, the auditors had no notice, till the dividend above mentioned was paid. Delany now claimed full payment. The matter was referred to the opinion of the Court upon a case stated, which was argued, at an adjourned Court, on the 11th of February 1785, by the Attorney General for the Commonwealth; Cox, Ingersol and Sergeant for the creditors.

The Court unanimously decided, that, on these facts, the Commonwealth was entitled to no preference.


U.S. Supreme Court

HOLLINGSWORTH v. HAMELIN, 1 U.S. 151 (1785)

 1 U.S. 151 (Dall.)

Hollingsworth
v.
Hamelin

Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County.

December Term, 1785

The defendant having absconded, a domestic attachment issued against him at the suit of the plaintiff, and the auditors, under that process, having advertised that all persons, who had demands, should send in their accounts, in a reasonable time afterwards, made a dividend among the creditors that filed their claims. Previously to issuing the domestic attachment, the defendant was indebted to the Commonwealth for duties upon a cargo imported, and having given bond to Sharp Delany (who was the collector, but not so named in the bond,) a writ was thereupon issued against him, but was returned non est inventus. Of this, however, the auditors had no notice, till the dividend above mentioned was paid. Delany now claimed full payment. The matter was referred to the opinion of the Court upon a case stated, which was argued, at an adjourned Court, on the 11th of February 1785, by the Attorney General for the Commonwealth; Cox, Ingersol and Sergeant for the creditors.

The Court unanimously decided, that, on these facts, the Commonwealth was entitled to no preference.

Disclaimer: Official Supreme Court case law is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia case law is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.

Justia Annotations is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze case law published on our site. Justia makes no guarantees or warranties that the annotations are accurate or reflect the current state of law, and no annotation is intended to be, nor should it be construed as, legal advice. Contacting Justia or any attorney through this site, via web form, email, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship.