History
  • No items yet
midpage
Freiberg v. Stoddard
161 Pa. 259
Pa.
1894
Check Treatment
Per Curiam,

We concur in the conclusions reached by the learned master and the court below. If at the time of the assignment the plaintiffs’ notes had been found by the assignee uncollected, he should have returned them. If a draft or bond or a specific package of money received in paj^ment of the notes had been found among the assets coming into his hands, it should have been turned over to the plaintiffs. But neither the notes, nor any security nor sum of money received in payment of them came into his hands. He holds nothing which he or the plaintiffs can identify with the notes or trace as a payment of them. This is clearly pointed out in the opinion of the learned judge of the court below, and we think the case may very properly be affirmed upon his opinion.

The judgment is affirmed.

Case Details

Case Name: Freiberg v. Stoddard
Court Name: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Date Published: Apr 23, 1894
Citation: 161 Pa. 259
Docket Number: Appeal, No. 442
Court Abbreviation: Pa.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.