Cobleigh v. Courtdale Borough

Luzerne County Court of Common Pleas

Cobleigh v. Courtdale Borough

48 Pa. D. & C. 604, 1943 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 101

CourtPennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Luzerne County

DecidedFebruary 2, 1943

Docketno. 160

StatusPublished

This text of 48 Pa. D. & C. 604 (Cobleigh v. Courtdale Borough) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Luzerne County primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cobleigh v. Courtdale Borough, 48 Pa. D. & C. 604, 1943 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 101 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1943).

Pincite

Opinion

Valentine, P. J.,

The exceptions filed to our adjudication are general ones. The real complaint, however, as embodied in defendant’s brief, is that we did not find that a portion of the claim against defendant borough had been assigned by plaintiff to the Wyoming Valley Collieries Company. The borough resisted payment to plaintiff upon the contention that such assignment had been made. It is true that under date of June 4,1937, such a proposed assignment was executed. It is equally true, however, that it was imperfect and ineffectual as it was never accepted by the officers of defendant borough, and never recognized by them as in existence or in force. The Wyoming Valley Collieries Company, alleged assignee, has made no claim to the fund designated in the assign[605]*605ment. The assignment was not valid in the absence of an acceptance: Penn Iron Co. v. City of Lancaster, 14 Lane. 177; and defendant cannot avoid liability to plaintiff by reason of the execution of such a paper.

Exceptions are dismissed and the prothonotary is directed to enter judgment in favor of plaintiffs, William Cobleigh and Kenneth Cobleigh, trading and doing business as Cobleigh Brothers, for $1,001.88, with interest from October 20, 1936.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Valentine, P. J.,

The exceptions filed to our adjudication are general ones. The real complaint, however, as embodied in defendant’s brief, is that we did not find that a portion of the claim against defendant borough had been assigned by plaintiff to the Wyoming Valley Collieries Company. The borough resisted payment to plaintiff upon the contention that such assignment had been made. It is true that under date of June 4,1937, such a proposed assignment was executed. It is equally true, however, that it was imperfect and ineffectual as it was never accepted by the officers of defendant borough, and never recognized by them as in existence or in force. The Wyoming Valley Collieries Company, alleged assignee, has made no claim to the fund designated in the assign[605]*605ment. The assignment was not valid in the absence of an acceptance: Penn Iron Co. v. City of Lancaster, 14 Lane. 177; and defendant cannot avoid liability to plaintiff by reason of the execution of such a paper.

Exceptions are dismissed and the prothonotary is directed to enter judgment in favor of plaintiffs, William Cobleigh and Kenneth Cobleigh, trading and doing business as Cobleigh Brothers, for $1,001.88, with interest from October 20, 1936.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

48 Pa. D. & C. 604, 1943 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 101, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cobleigh-v-courtdale-borough-pactcomplluzern-1943.