Case ID: serg-rawl_14/html/0290-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Tilghmaw, C. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

[Sunbury,
    June 28, 1826.]
    JACKSON against CRAWFORD.
    1ST ERROR.
    B. being indebted to C., and J. to B., and J. having a judgment against L., an an* rangement was made between C., B., and J., in pursuance of which J. assigned his judgment against L. to C., and B. delivered up to J. one of his bonds to him, and indorsed a receipt on another of his bonds for a sum amounting to the difference between the bond delivered up, and the judgment against L., assigned by J. to C. ¡ J. having refused to assign the judgment, unless this was done. There was no written guarantee of the assigned judgment, nor any express promise by J-., either to B. or to C., that, in case the money could not be recovered from L., he Would be responsible. L. proved insolvent, in consequence of which, C. brought suit against J Held, that the law raised no duty from J. to C.¿ by which the suit could be supported.
    This was an action on the case, brought in the Court of Common Pleas of Huntingdon county, by John Crawford, the defendant in error, against William Jackson, the plaintiff in error, who was defendant below, ft appeared, by the evidence attached to the record', that Crawford had a debt due to him from a certain John Beatty, to whom a debt Was due from the defendant Jac-kson, .who had obtained a judgment against Gershom Lambert. An arrangement was made between Crawford, Beatty, and Jackson, in pursuance of which Jackson assigned his judgment against Lambert, to Crawford, and Beatty delivered up to Jackson one of his bonds to him, and indorsed a receipt on another of his bonds for a sum amounting to the difference between the bond delivered up, and the. judgment against Lambert assigned by Jackson to Crawford. There was no guarantee of the assigned bond, in the written assignment, and-so the President of the Court of Common Pleas instructed the jury. Neither Was there any express promise of Jackson, either to Beatty, or to Crawford, that in case the money should not be recovered against Lambert, he would be responsible. Lambert proved insolvent, in consequence of which Craivford brought this suit against Jackson. The charge of the President of the Court of Common Pleas, which was excepted to by the counsel for the defendant, contained the following ' paragraph:—
    
      “ There is another point of view, in which this case has been presented, Beatty had Jackson’s bonds. Crawford procured Beatty to deliver up one bond, and put a receipt on another,— this in Jackson’s presence; — nay, he agreed to it, — and more, he would not transfer the judgment until this was done. Does this raise a duty from Jackson to Crawford, which would support a suit, without an express promise ? — And, in the opinion of the court, it does.”
    
    
      Smith and Pptter, for the plaintiff in error.
    
      Blanchard and Hale, for the defendant in error.
   The opinion of the court was delivered by

Tilghmaw, C. J.

It was hard on Crawford to lose his debt, and therefore the court was naturally inclined to favour him. I feel the same disposition myself, but ani restrained by the old adage, that from hard cases spring bad precedents: If Jackson had been indebted to Crawford, when he assigned him .the judgment against Lambert, I should agree that the assignment of the judgment would be no satisfaction of the pre-existing debt, unless it was so understood by the parties. But here was no antecedent debt. The arrangement between Crawford, Beatty,, and Jackson was all one transaction, of which the assignment of the judgment against Lambert formed a part.( Jackson was no way implicated in the debt due from Beatty to Crawford.. He assigned his judgment against Lambert, for which he received value by the extinguishment of his own debt to Beatty. And Crawford, if he released Beatty, of which I am not informed, .received value by the assignment ,of Jackson’s judgment against Lambert. For any thing that appears, he was satisfied with this assignment, for better for worse, since he asked no guarantee, or promise of any kind from Jackson. It seems to have been the opinion of the Court of Common Pleas, that previous to the assignment of the judgment, Jackson had put himself in the place of Beatty, and promised the payment of his debt to Crawford. Had this been so, the charge would have been correct. But it is not pretended, that he did this expressly, and I cannot perceive on what ground the law should imply it: It is stated that Jackson refused to make the assignment, until Beatty discharged him. But this he might well do, without taking,upon himself the payment of Beatty’s debt. Crawford procured a discharge-of Jackson’s debt to Beatty, in consideration'whereof, Jackson assigned to him his judgment against Lambert. This assignment was made in writing, and as the writing contained no guarantee, and there is not said to be any evidence of an express promise, I am of opinion that the law raised no duty from Jackson to Crawford.' This case was before us on a writ of error onee'be-fore. I have examined the opinion then given, and it really does . appear to me, that the point now in question was decided in favour of the defendant. I am of opinion, therefore, that the judgment should be reversed, and a venire de novo awarded.

Judgment reversed, and a venire facias de novo awarded. 
      
       See 12 Serg. & Rule 165.