McAllister v. Samuel

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

McAllister v. Samuel

17 Pa. 114, 1851 Pa. LEXIS 149

DecidedDecember 29, 1851

StatusPublished

This text of 17 Pa. 114 (McAllister v. Samuel) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

McAllister v. Samuel, 17 Pa. 114, 1851 Pa. LEXIS 149 (Pa. 1851).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Black, C. J.

The question' presented for decision in this case is whether the trustees of It. & I. Phillips, insolvent debtors, acquired title to their property by the discharge, or whether, in order to pass the estate and vest it in the trustees, it was necessary that a formal assignment should be made by the insolvents. The same point, upon precisely the same state of facts, arose in the case of Moncure v. Hanson, decided in April last, and reported in 3 Sarris 385. This court then held that the estate vested in the trustees at the time of the discharge. Where a question has been once deliberately settled after solemn argument, it ought not to be disturbed, unless it be so manifestly erroneous that it cannot be supported without doing violence to reason and justice. But the defendants in error have something besides mere authority in their favor. We have reconsidered the case of Moncure v. Hanson, and have heard attentively an able argument, in which the opinion of Mr. Justice Bell was subjected to a minute and careful analysis, yet we have not either seen or heard anything to shake our confidence in the soundness of it.

The judgment is therefore affirmed; and the cases of Catherwood v. Phillips, Farmers’ Bank v. Phillips, and Houston v. [116]*116Phillips, being in all respects similar to this, and having been submitted to the court on the same argument, the judgments in those cases are also affirmed.

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

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Black, C. J.

The question' presented for decision in this case is whether the trustees of It. & I. Phillips, insolvent debtors, acquired title to their property by the discharge, or whether, in order to pass the estate and vest it in the trustees, it was necessary that a formal assignment should be made by the insolvents. The same point, upon precisely the same state of facts, arose in the case of Moncure v. Hanson, decided in April last, and reported in 3 Sarris 385. This court then held that the estate vested in the trustees at the time of the discharge. Where a question has been once deliberately settled after solemn argument, it ought not to be disturbed, unless it be so manifestly erroneous that it cannot be supported without doing violence to reason and justice. But the defendants in error have something besides mere authority in their favor. We have reconsidered the case of Moncure v. Hanson, and have heard attentively an able argument, in which the opinion of Mr. Justice Bell was subjected to a minute and careful analysis, yet we have not either seen or heard anything to shake our confidence in the soundness of it.

The judgment is therefore affirmed; and the cases of Catherwood v. Phillips, Farmers’ Bank v. Phillips, and Houston v. [116]*116Phillips, being in all respects similar to this, and having been submitted to the court on the same argument, the judgments in those cases are also affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

17 Pa. 114, 1851 Pa. LEXIS 149, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcallister-v-samuel-pa-1851.