Lea, executrix, et al., v. Yard; Hazlehurst et al. v. Dallas, Secretary of the Commonwealth
Syllabus
*JANUARY SESSION, 1804. Present — Chew, President of the Court, and Rush, Riddle, Henry and Roberts, Presidents of the Common Pleas. Lea, executrix, et al., v. Yard. Hazlehurst et al. v. Dallas, Secretary of the Commonwealth. An auctioneer’s bond is a security for his private customers, as well as for the payment of duties to the government. Yard v. Lea, 8 Yeates 335, and Dallas v. Ohaloner’s executors, 3 Dali. 500, affirmed. Error from the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. These actions depended chiefly on the same facts and principles; and were argued together, both in the supreme court, and in this court. The facts were these : John Chaloner was appointed an auctioneer for the city of Philadelphia, on the 1st of August 1*791, and gave a bond to the secretary of the commonwealth, in the penal sum of 2000Í., with two sureties, namely, Leonard Dorsey and Thomas Lea, who are both since dead. Richard S. Footman was also appointed an auctioneer, on the 9lh of June 1*795 ; and gave a similar bond, with Isaac Hazelhurst and John D. Coxe, as his sureties. The conditions of the bonds were of the following tenor : In Chaloner’s case : “ Whereas, the above-bounden John Chaloner was, on the first instant, re-appointed auctioneer, with authority to make sales by auction, at any place or places within the *city of Philadelphia, the * district of Southwark, or the township of the Northern Liberties, or Moyamensing, according to law : Now, the condition of this obligation is such, that if the
Full Opinion (1,180 characters)
After deliberation, The Court were unanimously of opinion,- that the inctioneer’s bond was intended, by law, for the benefit of his private eus-omcrs, as well as for securing the duties payable to the government: And therefore, the judgments of the supreme court were affirmed; and the records ■remitted for further proceedings, In the case of Dallas v. Hazlehurst, the defendants paid the amount of tho penalty of the bond into the supreme court, to be disposed of as the court should direct Todd, for several creanors who had not brought suits, or whose suits were subsequent in date to Mrs. Gapper s s,ut, asked the opinion of the court, whether the creditors of Footman were not entitlea to share in the fund, pro rata ? Dallas and S. Levy urged, that upon principal and autnority, the creditor first suing was entitled to be first and completely paid, before other creditors were admitted. The Court were clearly of that opinion; and Mrs. Gapper’s debe with interest was, accordingly, satisfied, leaving only the surplus of the fund for other creditors. This case was overruled in Girard v. Taggart, 5 S. & R. 19: and for some remarks upos Willing v. Rowland, see Id. 31, 33.
Source: Caselaw Access Project (Harvard Law School). This page is informational and is not legal advice.