Nesmith v. Drum

8 Watts & Serg. 9
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided September 15, 1844·Published·Cited by 17 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

An equitable assignment is an agreement in the nature of a declaration of trust, which a chancellor, though deaf to the prayer of a volunteer, never hesitates to execute when it has been made on valuable, or even good consideration. Could there be a more explicit declaration than the order before us ? Drum and Collins draw on their lawyer for the proceeds of an action against Hawkins, which they declare in the order to have been appropriated to payment of their note in the Warren Bank, on which Wheelen, the payee, was one of their sureties. If this appropriation was a condition of the contract of suretyship, it rested on a valuable consideration; if it was not, it rested on a good one, which is equally available. Drum and Collins were bound to secure Wheelen by putting funds into his hands to take up the paper at maturity, if they should not; and in giving this order they yielded to a moral obligation, which is a consideration for an express contract. The appropriation, then, being complete as an assignment of the fund by the agreement of the parties, even without the acceptance of the drawee, could not be revoked.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Nesmith v. Drum, 8 Watts & Serg. 9 (Pa. 1844).

8 Watts & Serg. 9 (Nesmith v. Drum) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Davis v. Davis
88 Pa. D. & C. 420 (Lawrence County Court of Common Pleas, 1954)
Upper Dublin Township School District v. Simmers
54 Pa. D. & C. 461 (Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas, 1945)
Fisher v. Stevens Coal Co. (Et Al.,)
7 A.2d 573 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1939)
Beechwood Improvement Co. v. Farrell City
187 A. 306 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1936)
Oldfield's Estate
72 Pa. Super. 340 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1919)
Warrington v. Mengel
41 Pa. Super. 362 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1909)
Fett's Estate
39 Pa. Super. 246 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1909)
Botsford v. Lull
30 Pa. Super. 292 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1906)
In re Oliver
132 F. 588 (N.D. Texas, 1904)
Day & Sharpe's Assigned Estate
21 Pa. Super. 118 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1902)
Brightly v. McAleer
3 Pa. Super. 442 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1897)
Guthrie & Byles's Appeal
92 Pa. 269 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1880)
Ruple ex rel. Lewis v. Bindley
91 Pa. 296 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1879)
East Lewisburg Lumber & Manufacturing Co. v. Marsh
91 Pa. 96 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1879)
Pringle v. Pringle
59 Pa. 281 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1868)
State ex rel. State Bank v. Hastings
15 Wis. 75 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1862)
Cunningham v. Garvin
10 Pa. 366 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1849)