MATHER v. PRATT, 4 U.S. 224 (1800)
4 U.S. 224 (Dall.) Mather Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. December Term, 1800U.S. Supreme Court
MATHER v. PRATT, 4 U.S. 224 (1800)
v.
Pratt et al.
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) ]
