Dunham Dimon v. . Whitehead
New York Court of Appeals
Appeal from the Supreme Court. The plaintiffs, judgment creditors whose execution had been returned unsatisfied, of Hare and Pugh, brought an action in the nature of a creditor's bill against them and one Whitehead, to whom Hare and Pugh had assigned all their property.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Supreme Court. The plaintiffs, judgment creditors whose execution had been returned unsatisfied, of Hare and Pugh, brought an action in the nature of a creditor's bill against them and one Whitehead, to whom Hare and Pugh had assigned all their property. The trial was before Mr. Justice Roosevelt, without jury.' He found these facts: Pugh and Hare were in business as iron founders, and being indebted to Whitehead for $4,028, gave him, on the 19th November, 1851* their note-for that sum and a chattel mortgage on the stock and materials in their foundry as security for its…
1Opinion of the CourtWelles, J.
This, it seems to me, is a clear case for the defendant. The assignment from Hare and Pugh to Whitehead, dated December 5, 1851, was in the nature of a chattel mortgage, by which the latter acquired a lien, to the' extent of his demand against the former, upon the property and ehoses in action' assigned. It cannot be distinguished in principle from Leitch v. Hollister (4 Comst., 211). It is claimed by the plaintiffs that this case is unlike that, inasmuch as the instrument in this embraces and transfers all the'assignors’ property and things in action; whereas that conveyed only a single…
2Cited by19 opinions
- Winner v. HoytWisconsin Supreme Court · 1886
- Weber v. MickIllinois Supreme Court · 1890
- Huntley v. KingmanSupreme Court of the United States · 1894
- Gilbert v. McCorkleIndiana Supreme Court · 1887
- Title Guaranty & Surety Co. v. WitmireCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1912
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.