Lewis v. Williams

6 Whart. 264, 1841 Pa. LEXIS 28
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided February 16, 1841·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Nothing is clearer at the common law than that a judgment in a several action against a partner, merges the debt; and that if the statute does not help this plaintiff, the law is against him. But the statute was intended for the case of a judgment on a joint action taken severally against one of the defendants, which is nevertheless a joint judgment. Joint and several obligors are indeed mentioned in it; but there is no room for its application where one of them has been sued severally: the other would be liable on what is his several bond without it. The mischief was, that defendants, in a joint action, not taken or served, were discharged by the judgment, though the plaintiff had done all he could to bring them,in ; and no more was intended to be remedied. In this case, the plaintiff chose to accept the several judgment of one of the partners; and the statute is applicable exclusively to cases, not only of joint contract, but also of joint action.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Lewis v. Williams, 6 Whart. 264, 1841 Pa. LEXIS 28 (Pa. 1841).

6 Whart. 264 (Lewis v. Williams) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

People v. Pujals
34 P.R. 382 (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, 1925)
Brooks & Ellis v. McIntyre
4 Mich. 316 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1856)
Moore v. Hepburn
5 Pa. 399 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1847)
Jones v. Johnson
3 Watts & Serg. 276 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1842)