Roop v. Rogers

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Roop v. Rogers

5 Watts 193

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedMay 15, 1836

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 5 Watts 193 (Roop v. Rogers) 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

Roop v. Rogers, 5 Watts 193 (Pa. 1836).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

In the absence of proof, an officer is presumed to have done his duty. The money in the constable’s hands was made on executions in favour of joint and separate creditors; and the presumption is, that he sold the entire interest of the firm in a sufficient portion of the property to answer the partnership debts, and the separate interest of the particular partner in the residue to answer his separate debts. In that aspect, the constable was entitled to retain in order to satisfy the separate executions. ■

Judgment reversed.

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

Per Curiam.

In the absence of proof, an officer is presumed to have done his duty. The money in the constable’s hands was made on executions in favour of joint and separate creditors; and the presumption is, that he sold the entire interest of the firm in a sufficient portion of the property to answer the partnership debts, and the separate interest of the particular partner in the residue to answer his separate debts. In that aspect, the constable was entitled to retain in order to satisfy the separate executions. ■

Judgment reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 Watts 193, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roop-v-rogers-pa-1836.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack