Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

161 Pa. 259

Freiberg v. Stoddard

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided April 23, 1894

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · decided 1894-04-23

Appeal, No. 442, Jan. T., 1894, by plaintiffs, Joseph Freiberg and Abraham Freiberg, trading as J. & A. Freiberg, from order of C. P. Luzerne Co., Oct. T., 1893, No. 2, dismissing bill in equity. Bill in equity to restrain assignee for benefit of creditors from paying out money.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Affirmed · Decided 1894-04-23

How this case has been cited

Cited by 23 later decisions — most recently May 1937

3 federal appellate · 19 state decisions

11018941900191019201930decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Per Curiam,

¶1We concur in the conclusions reached by the learned master and the court below. If at the time of the assignment the plaintiffs’ notes had been found by the assignee uncollected, he should have returned them. If a draft or bond or a specific package of money received in paj^ment of the notes had been found among the assets coming into his hands, it should have been turned over to the plaintiffs. But neither the notes, nor any security nor sum of money received in payment of them came into his hands. He holds nothing which he or the plaintiffs can identify with the notes or trace as a payment of them. This is clearly pointed out in the opinion of the learned judge of the court below, and we think the case may very properly be affirmed upon his opinion.

¶2The judgment is affirmed.

/161/pa/259 · .json · Public domain