Eels v. Finch
New York Supreme Court
THIS action was brought to recover a compensation for a quantity of timber. The third count in the declaration, on which the verdict was taken, was for goods sold and delivered.
Read the full summary
THIS action was brought to recover a compensation for a quantity of timber. The third count in the declaration, on which the verdict was taken, was for goods sold and delivered. At the trial, the following receipt was produced in evidence : “ Peru, June 17,1807. Received of Simon Eels, in lumber, to the amount of 475 dollars, if said lumber holds out at the ^tiebec Cull, which sum is to be paid on an obligation and mortgage the said Finch has taken of the said Eels, and a debt of account I have against the said Eels of forty dollars. Received by me, Isaac Finch, jun.” On the back of this…
1Opinion of the CourtYates, J.
The question here is, whether this receipt ought, under the circumstances disclosed in this cause, to be deemed such an absolute payment on the bond, as to bar a recovery, on the count for goods sold and delivered.
It is a settled principle, that a court of law will regard the assignment of a chose in action, and protect the interest of an assignee, against any person having notice, or who is bound to take notice of it. The power of the original owner is so far at an end, immediately after an assignment and notice, that no subsequent payments made to him will avail; and consequently no release…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Veazie v. WilliamsSupreme Court of the United States · 1850
- Gupton v. GuptonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1870
- Barton v. BartonMissouri Court of Appeals · 1906
- Huling v. HulingAppellate Court of Illinois · 1889
- Pass v. McRea, Coffman & Co.Mississippi Supreme Court · 1858
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.