Case ID: yeates_3/html/0519-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Sed per cur.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Lessee of Henry Willis against Ernst Row.
    One discharged as an insolvent debtor, cannot support an ejectment for lands previously vested in him, though his trustees have not given bond pursuant to the act of 4th April 1798.
    
      Cited and followed in 5 S. & R. 397, where it was decided that the defendant may give in evidence, on non assumpsit, that the plaintiff is an insolvent debtor, and that his property has been assigned to trustees for the use of his creditors.
    Cited in 14 S. & R. 119 to show that the property of an insolvent debtor passes to the trustee immediately on the assignment.
    Cited in 9 S. & R. 455 in support of the decision that an insolvent debtor, who has assigned his property, cannot sue for a cause of action existing at the time of the assignment, in his own name, though empowered by his creditors, and though the assignees have not acted.
    Cited in 2 Watts 221; 2 Phila. 85.
    Ejectment for lands in Newberry township.
    The lessor of the plaintiff made title as heir at common law in tail, under the last will of his grandfather, Henry Willis, through his father William Willis. The said William Willis, on the 2d April 1796, sold and conveyed the premises to the defendant’s landlords, in consideration of 900I. without having suffered a common recovery, and died insolvent.
    It was objected, that the lessor of the plaintiff had on the 9th September 1799, applied to the Court of Common Pleas of 1 *Dauphin county, for the benefit of the insolvent act, 5 J with a list of his debts and credits, and had been discharged on his assignment of all his property, real, personal and mixed, to Jacob Burkhart and Nicholas Ort, in trust for the use of his creditors.
    The plaintiff’s counsel insisted, that no bond appearing to have been given by the trustees with security for the faithful performance of their trust, pursuant to the 3d, section of the act of 4th April 1798, the assignment vested no title in them under the law. 4 St. Laws 271.
    Messrs. Duncan and C. Smith, pro quer.
    
    Messrs. Bowie and Hopkins, pro def.
    
   Sed per cur.

The words of the act are, “every trustee be“fore he acts as such shall give bond,” &c. The insolvent debtor is devested of all his property at the moment of the assignment, though the trustees cannot act until they have executed bonds, under the strict words of the law. We have found it impossible to carry this law into effect in this particular ; and during its continuance we are persuaded, that far the greater number of trustees appointed by the Supreme Court have not given bonds. Few persons will devote their time to the service of others, and give security for that purpose, in cases where the prospect of obtaining payment of their debts is very small and remote. But it would be monstrous to suppose, that an insolvent debtor, after assigning his estate, and his person is freed from arrests, could maintain an ejectment for lands vested in him previous to his discharge, his debts remaining unpaid. If this could be tolerated, because the trustees had not given bond, he might sell his lands the moment after his discharge, and bid defiance to his creditors.

Plaintiff nonsuit.