Burke v. United States
United States Court of Claims
On Burke’s Motion. The Reporters’ statement of tbe case: In this case tbe bankrupt, before bankruptcy, assigned tbe claim to one Browning for good consideration. Browing’s attorney obtained all tbe evidence necessary to prove tbe case, and conducted tbe suit up to tbe time of final bearing, and was present at and assisted in tbe final argument.
Read the full summary
On Burke’s Motion. The Reporters’ statement of tbe case: In this case tbe bankrupt, before bankruptcy, assigned tbe claim to one Browning for good consideration. Browing’s attorney obtained all tbe evidence necessary to prove tbe case, and conducted tbe suit up to tbe time of final bearing, and was present at and assisted in tbe final argument. On tbe motion of tbe purchaser from tbe assignee in bankruptcy to be admitted to prosecute tbe suit, it was ordered tbat be be admitted upon satisfying tbe court tbat be bad paid or assured to Browning’s attorney a reasonable compensation for bis…
1ConcurrenceNott, J.
Cboses in action are commonly said to be unassignable at law, and of tbem that tbe assignee cannot maintain an action in assumpsit except in tbe name of tbe assignor. But this saying expresses neither tbe rule nor tbe principle, inasmuch as it omits two material limitations. Correctly stated, tbe rule of tbe common law would have been this: Upon considerations of pubhc policy, to prevent maintenance and the- multiplying of contentions and suits, no assignment or conveyance of a chose in action shall be effective to transfer tbe debt or demand, nor to give tbe assignee a right of action,…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Mandeville v. WelchSupreme Court of the United States · 1820
- Winship v. the Bank of the United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1831
- Welch v. MandevilleSupreme Court of the United States · 1816
- McHenry v. . HazardNew York Court of Appeals · 1871
- Leach v. GreeneMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1875
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.