Murdoch v. Finney
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from St. Louis Law Commissioner’s Court. Action for money had and received. From the whole record, the following appeared to be the facts : Lee & Martin had an account against the Central Fire Company, which they transferred to Brantner & Welbourn in payment of an indebtedness to them.
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis Law Commissioner’s Court. Action for money had and received. From the whole record, the following appeared to be the facts : Lee & Martin had an account against the Central Fire Company, which they transferred to Brantner & Welbourn in payment of an indebtedness to them. Brantner & Welbourn subsequently made an assignment to the plaintiffs, for the benefit of their creditors, of all their property, including the account transferred to them by Lee & Martin. Subsequent to the transfer to Brantner & Welbourn, Lee & Martin transferred the account against the Fire Company to…
1Opinion of the CourtScott, Judge
1. This case appears to turn on the law respecting the assignment of choses in action. The law on this subject seems to be well settled. As between the assignor and the assignee, the equitable right will pass without any notice to the debtor ; for the assignor is bound from the moment of the contract. But if the assignee means to go further and make his right attach upon the thing assigned, it is necessary to give notice to the debtor or trustee of the assignment. But if, after a chose in action is transferred by its owner, it is assigned a second time, and the last assignee first give notice…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Heath v. PowersSupreme Court of Missouri · 1846
3Cited by11 opinions
- Leilich v. Chevrolet Motor Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1931
- Hess & Skinner Engineering Co. v. TurneyCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1918
- In Re Vardaman Shoe Co.District Court, E.D. Missouri · 1943
- Houser v. RichardsonMissouri Court of Appeals · 1901
- Klebba v. StruempfMissouri Court of Appeals · 1930
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.