Andrews v. Beecker
New York Supreme Court
This was an action of debt, on a bond dated 14th January, 1799, conditioned to execute a certain deed therein mentioned. The defendant pleaded a release given to him by the plaintiff, dated the 23d September, 1799, of all suits, debts, bonds, &c. The plaintiff replied, that on the 18th January, 1799, he assigned the bond to Adams & Parish, of which the defendant. had due notice. To this replication there was a general demurrer and joinder.
1Per curiam
The replication is clearly good. A release after the assignment of the bond and notice to the defendant, is a nullity, and ought not to be regarded.(a) As the demur*490rer does not appear to be frivolous, the defendant may withdraw it, on payment of costs, and rejoin.(b)
The law will protect an assignee’s equitable interest in a chose in action, when the assignment is Iona fide, and for a valuable. consideration against all persons having notice of the trust or assignment. Sheftall v. Clay, Charlt. *490230. Anderson v. Van Alen, 12 Johns. R. 343. Briggs v. Dorr, 19 Johns. R. 95. Van Vechteñ v.…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Jones v. WitterMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1816
- Kemp's Ex'x. v. M'PhersonCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1826
- King v. FowlerMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1820
- M'CULLUM v. CoxeSupreme Court of the United States · 1785
- Kellogg v. KrauserSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1826
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- Sprint Communications Co. v. APCC Services, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 2008
- Martin v. HawksNew York Supreme Court · 1818
- Farmers' National Bank v. WoodellOregon Supreme Court · 1900
- Prescott v. HullNew York Supreme Court · 1820
- Tuttle v. BebeeNew York Supreme Court · 1811
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.