Legal Opinion

Kittlewell v. Scull

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided July 15, 1841PublishedCited by 1 opinion

Error to Jefferson Circuit Court. This was an action of debt. The declaration commenced, “John Kittlewell and William Boggs, partners, &c., complain of Hewes Scull.” It then averred the making of a certain note, by Scull, to Richard C. Byrd, and its assignment by Byrd to them, with a breach that neither the debt nor interest had been paid to Byrd before the assignment, nor to the plaintiffs afterwards.

Read the full summary

Error to Jefferson Circuit Court. This was an action of debt. The declaration commenced, “John Kittlewell and William Boggs, partners, &c., complain of Hewes Scull.” It then averred the making of a certain note, by Scull, to Richard C. Byrd, and its assignment by Byrd to them, with a breach that neither the debt nor interest had been paid to Byrd before the assignment, nor to the plaintiffs afterwards. In the Court below, at the return term, Borriss, for defendant, moved to dismiss, for want of a bond for costs. The record simply states, that he made the motion, and that it was overruled. He…

1Opinion of the CourtDickinson, J.

It cannot be contended that the rales governing actions brought by executors, administrators, or guardians, are applicable to the case before us. They sue in their representative character and capacity, and not in their own right, or for their own individual benefit. At common law, an assignee could not maintain an action in his own name; and it was to remedy this inconvenience, that our statute was enacted, authorizing the assignment of bills, bonds, and notes, and the bringing of the suit in the name of the assignee on the original obligation. And the assignee stands precisely in the same…

2Cited by1 opinion

  1. Elliott v. PearceSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1859

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API