Reilly v. Russell
Supreme Court of Missouri
Error to St. Louis Circuit Court. Casselberry, for plaintiff in error. I. We contend that the numerous persons who. claim an interest in the judgment are not assignees in law or equity, because a part of a judgment or part of a chose in action •cannot be assigned in law or equity so as to enable the as-signee to sue.
Read the full summary
Error to St. Louis Circuit Court. Casselberry, for plaintiff in error. I. We contend that the numerous persons who. claim an interest in the judgment are not assignees in law or equity, because a part of a judgment or part of a chose in action •cannot be assigned in law or equity so as to enable the as-signee to sue. The reason is given by the court in case of Love v. Fairfield, 13 Mo. 300, and by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Mandeville v. Welch, 5 Wheat. 277. The pretended assignments specified in the record amount at best to a mere equitable lien on the fund…
1Opinion of the CourtFagg, Judge
The record in this case presents rather a singular state of facts. It appears that on the 30th day of January, 1861, William Bennett recovered a judgment against Samuel Russell for nine thousand three hundred and thirty-eight and 35-100 dollars ; that an appeal was taken to the Supreme Court and the judgment affirmed at the March term, 1864. At different periods during the year 1861 Bennett made an assignment of portions of the proceeds of said judgment to various creditors to an amount in the aggregate of about the same for which he had obtained judgment. The said several sums were to be…
2Cited by8 opinions
- Cantwell v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1911
- Karst v. SellerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1920
- State Ex Rel. L. J. Mueller Furnace Co. v. BucknerMissouri Court of Appeals · 1921
- Tiffany Productions of California, Inc. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1933
- Heard v. Estate of FryeMissouri Court of Appeals · 1960
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.