GUTHRIE v. WHITE, 1 U.S. 268 (1788)

U.S. Supreme Court

GUTHRIE v. WHITE, 1 U.S. 268 (1788)

1 U.S. 268 (Dall.)

Guthrie Assignee
v.
White

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

April Term, 1788

A certiorari was issued to John Culbertson Esq; one of the Justices for the county of Chester, to remove the proceedings in this cause; and the record being accordingly returned, it appeared that one Irwin, having maintained the Defendant's daughter for several weeks, made out an account against him, and, after swearing to the truth and justice of its contents, he assigned all his right, title, and interest therein to the Plaintiff. The debt being under ten pounds, the Plaintiff, in his own name, sued the father before the Justice upon this assignment, and obtained a judgment and execution against him; although, as it was stated in the Defendant's deposition, his daughter was of full age at the time of contracting the debt, and no assumption, upon his part, had been proved or suggested.

Bradford moved to reverse the Judgment; 1st, on account of the general irregularity of the proceedings; and 2ndly, because an action could not be maintained, by the assignee of a simple contract debt, in his own name.

The Court considered the whole proceedings to have been irregular; but said, that there could be no doubt of the sufficiency of the second reason alone, as a ground for setting them aside. And the Judgment was accordingly reversed.


U.S. Supreme Court

GUTHRIE v. WHITE, 1 U.S. 268 (1788)

1 U.S. 268 (Dall.)

Guthrie Assignee
v.
White

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

April Term, 1788

A certiorari was issued to John Culbertson Esq; one of the Justices for the county of Chester, to remove the proceedings in this cause; and the record being accordingly returned, it appeared that one Irwin, having maintained the Defendant's daughter for several weeks, made out an account against him, and, after swearing to the truth and justice of its contents, he assigned all his right, title, and interest therein to the Plaintiff. The debt being under ten pounds, the Plaintiff, in his own name, sued the father before the Justice upon this assignment, and obtained a judgment and execution against him; although, as it was stated in the Defendant's deposition, his daughter was of full age at the time of contracting the debt, and no assumption, upon his part, had been proved or suggested.

Bradford moved to reverse the Judgment; 1st, on account of the general irregularity of the proceedings; and 2ndly, because an action could not be maintained, by the assignee of a simple contract debt, in his own name.

The Court considered the whole proceedings to have been irregular; but said, that there could be no doubt of the sufficiency of the second reason alone, as a ground for setting them aside. And the Judgment was accordingly reversed.

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.