Oliphant v. Frost

9 Pa. 308
CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania
DecidedJuly 1, 1848
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 9 Pa. 308 (Oliphant v. Frost) 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
Oliphant v. Frost, 9 Pa. 308 (Pa. 1848).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

By agreement of the creditors, the bond was paid into court as cash; and a fund in court does not bear interest. If the obligor was ready with the money when called for, it was all they could ask. The purchase-money was not invested for accumulation, and they knew it. The security was taken as an equivalent for the thing secured; and having the benefit of it, they cannot complain that the shadow is not greater than the substance. But they had a right to have the bond entered up; and whether it was at the suit of the proper plaintiff, cannot be told, as the bond is not part of the record. A transfer to a legal assignee could be pleaded as a defence on the merits, which could be attained only by opening the judgment.- But the execution for interest is erroneous.

Execution set aside.

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

Related

Fox v. Lofland
98 F.2d 589 (Third Circuit, 1938)
County Treasurer's Appeal
9 Pa. D. & C. 324 (Erie County Court Common Pleas, 1926)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
9 Pa. 308, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/oliphant-v-frost-pa-1848.