MATHER v. PRATT, 4 U.S. 224 (1800)

U.S. Supreme Court

MATHER v. PRATT, 4 U.S. 224 (1800)

4 U.S. 224 (Dall.)

Mather
v.
Pratt et al.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

December Term, 1800

THIS was an action brought by the plaintiff, as indorsee and holder of several promissory notes, drawn by Dorey and Bayhir, in favour of Joseph Mussi, against the defendants, to whom Dorey and Bayhir had assigned all their estate, in trust for the payment, pro rata, of such of their creditors, as should, within a certain period, execute a general release; and the dividend of the non-assenting creditors was to be paid to them. The plaintiff had not executed the release; and, it was objected, that he could not sue the trustees, even for a dividend, in his own name, without performing the condition precedent.

THE COURT.

The COURT were unanimously, and clearly, of this opinion; and the plaintiff suffered a non-suit. [Footnote 1]

M. Levy, for the plaintiff.

Dallas, for the defendant.

Footnotes

Footnote 1 After this non-suit, the plaintiff issued a foreign attachment against Dorey and Bayhir, and attached the dividend in the hands of the defendants; which was, eventually, recovered.[ Mather v. Pratt

Footnote 4 U.S. 224 (1800) ]




U.S. Supreme Court

MATHER v. PRATT, 4 U.S. 224 (1800)

4 U.S. 224 (Dall.)

Mather
v.
Pratt et al.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

December Term, 1800

THIS was an action brought by the plaintiff, as indorsee and holder of several promissory notes, drawn by Dorey and Bayhir, in favour of Joseph Mussi, against the defendants, to whom Dorey and Bayhir had assigned all their estate, in trust for the payment, pro rata, of such of their creditors, as should, within a certain period, execute a general release; and the dividend of the non-assenting creditors was to be paid to them. The plaintiff had not executed the release; and, it was objected, that he could not sue the trustees, even for a dividend, in his own name, without performing the condition precedent.

THE COURT.

The COURT were unanimously, and clearly, of this opinion; and the plaintiff suffered a non-suit. [Footnote 1]

M. Levy, for the plaintiff.

Dallas, for the defendant.

Footnotes

Footnote 1 After this non-suit, the plaintiff issued a foreign attachment against Dorey and Bayhir, and attached the dividend in the hands of the defendants; which was, eventually, recovered.[ Mather v. Pratt

Footnote 4 U.S. 224 (1800) ]

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.