Opinion · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Harrisburg Bank v. German
3 Pa. 300
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- Jurisdiction
- Pennsylvania
- Date
- 1846-07-02
- Topic
- bankruptcy
Per Curiam. The objection that the two funds belonged to different debtors, is decisive. Rutherford, who seeks to be admitted to Baab’s right of substitution, is merely his creditor, not the creditor of German, whose interest is subordinate only to that of Baab. But Baab’s right of substitution is a personal one, which he might waive; and what right has his creditor to insist that it shall be exercised not for his benefit, but against his will ? It is true that the lien of Rutherford’s judgment against Baab’s land, was excluded by the bank’s judgment; but that gave Rutherford no equity against German, whose interest was independent of him.
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed Harrisburg Bank v. German. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
The objection that the two funds belonged to different debtors, is decisive. Rutherford, who seeks to be admitted to Baab’s right of substitution, is merely his creditor, not the creditor of German, whose interest is subordinate only to that of Baab. But Baab’s right of substitution is a personal one, which he might waive; and what right has his creditor to insist that it shall be exercised not for his benefit, but against his will ? It is true that the lien of Rutherford’s judgment against Baab’s land, was excluded by the bank’s judgment; but that gave Rutherford no equity against German, whose interest was independent of him. Neither did it give him a right to the bank’s securities, with whom it stood in no privity; stil)
Order affirmed.