Case Name: Shenandoah Methodist Episcopal Church versus Robbins & Co.
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1876-03-13
Citations: 81 1/2 Pa. 361
Docket Number: 
Parties: Shenandoah Methodist Episcopal Church versus Robbins & Co.
Judges: Before Agnew, C. J., Sharswood, Mercur, Gordon, Paxson, and Woodward, JJ.
Reporter: Pennsylvania State Reports
Volume: 81 1/2
Pages: 361–362

Head Matter:
Shenandoah Methodist Episcopal Church versus Robbins & Co.
1. In a suit against a church for a debt, the affidavit of defence was, that at. a meeting of the trustees of the church, plaintiff being one, and all the creditors', of the church being members, except a building association, plaintiff proposed' that if the creditors of the church would release their claims he would releaseliis; that the proposition was accepted by the creditors of the church, and in consequence of it he cancelled his claim ; the claim of the building association was paid in full by the trustees. Held, That the affidavit was insufficient,'the-payment to the association having destroyed the purpose of the offer to release.
2. A composition deed requires equality and fairness amongst all creditqrs; all. must execute it or none are bound.
March 7th, 1876.
Before Agnew, C. J., Sharswood, Mercur, Gordon, Paxson, and Woodward, JJ.
Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Schuylkill County,. of January Term, 1876, No. 125.
This was an action of assumpsit, brought September 4th,. 1875, by Robbins & Co., against the Methodist Episcopal Church of Shenandoah, for lumber furnished to the defendants ; the plaintiffs’ claim being $203.42
The defendants filed an affidavit of defence, viz.:
That at a meeting of the trustees of the defendants on or about February, 1874, Elmer Robbins, one of the plaintiffs’ firm, and also a trustee of the defendants, made a proposition' to the creditors of the church, all of whom were members' of the church, except the Citizens’ Building and Loan Asso ciatiou, “ that if the creditors of the said church would release their claims agaiust the said church, the plaintiffs would release their claim that the proposition was accepted by the creditors of the church, and they had cancelled their claim “ in consequence of and in belief of the good faith of the proposition, and had paid off the building association as aforesaid their claim ; the claim of said association being paid in full by the trustees,” etc.
The Court entered judgment for the plaintiffs for want of ' a sufficient affidavit of defence, and the damages were assessed $236.75.
This was assigned for error on the removal of the record to the Supreme Court by the defendants.
S. O. M. Holopeter and B. Bartholomew, for plaintiffs in error.
O. P. Bechtel, for defendants in error.

Opinion:
Judgment was entered in the Supreme Court, March 13th, 1876.
Per Curiam :
The agreement to release, set forth in the affidavit, like a composition deed, demands equality and fairness among all the creditors; all must execute it or none will be bound. The affidavit discloses on its face that one of the creditors was paid in full by the trustees of the church. Now, unless the assent of the other creditors was obtained to the payment, it certainly destroyed the very purpose of the offer to release, to wit, that all the creditors should forego their claims. Eor this, and other reasons, the affidavit of defence was insufficient.
Judgment affirmed.