Dubois v. Doubleday
New York Supreme Court
This was an action of assumpsit, tried at the Tioga circuit in May, 1830, before the Hon. Nathan Williams, one of the circuit judges. The declaration contained the common money counts, including an insimul computassent.
Read the full summary
This was an action of assumpsit, tried at the Tioga circuit in May, 1830, before the Hon. Nathan Williams, one of the circuit judges. The declaration contained the common money counts, including an insimul computassent. The plaintiff claimed to recover the balance of one half, of the amount of a bond executed by the defendant to one Ezekiel Crocker, who assigned the same to Oliver Crocker, and Oliver Crocker assigned the half of the monies secured by the bond to the plaintiff. The bond bore date 12th January, 1822, and was conditioned for the payment of $1243. The assignment to the plaintiff…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court,
Nelson, J.
The case of Compton v. Jones, 4 Cowen, 13, decides that the assignee of a chose in action may maintain assumpsit in his own name to recover the amount, upon a promise to pay him by the original debtor, and this, where the contract assigned is a specialty. It is at least questionable, if this action could be maintained in England, though the cases in this country which sustain the doctrine profess to be based upon the case of Fenner v. Meares, 2 Black. R. 1242. The difficulty in the case is the want of consideration to support the promise to the assignee, and without…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Wood v. Rutland & Addison Mutual Fire InsuranceSupreme Court of Vermont · 1859
- De Barry v. Withers & PetersonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1863
- Richards v. KillamMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1813
- Jessel v. Williamsburgh InsuranceNew York Supreme Court · 1842