Tudor Woodbridge & Co. v. Perkins
Supreme Court of Connecticut
MOTION for a new trial. . I his was a scire facias against the defendant, as the agent> attorney, factor, trustee and debtor of John T. Duryee, of New- York, an absent and absconding debtor.
Read the full summary
MOTION for a new trial. . I his was a scire facias against the defendant, as the agent> attorney, factor, trustee and debtor of John T. Duryee, of New- York, an absent and absconding debtor. The defendant pleaded, that he was not the agent, See. sa*^ John T. Duryee., nor had he any effects of said Duryee in his hands. t On the trial to the jury, it appeared, that the plaintiffs left a copy of their writ against Duryee with the defendant on the 11th of October, 1806. Prior to the 21st of July, 1806, the defendant was indebted to Duryee, on book, to a larger amount than the plaintiffs’ claim.…
1Opinion of the Court
By tih; Court.
Where there is an assignment of a book debt, until notice of this assignment is given to the debtor, he remains the debtor of the assignor, and *377of course cannot be the debtor of the assignee; it being, a rule: of law, that where there is sale of personal property, the possession of such property must be changed ¡from the vendor to the vendee, or it will he liable to the creditors of the vendor. So in the case of an assignment of a bond, or note of hand, there must be a delivery of the bond or note to the assignee, and notice of the assignment roust be given to the obligor, or…
2Cited by8 opinions
- Coleman & Carroll v. Hatcher & BrannonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1884
- M. Ward & Co. v. MorrisonSupreme Court of Vermont · 1853
- Bishop v. HolcombSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1835
- Vanbuskirk v. Hartford Fire Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1841
- Naylor v. FosdickSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1810
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.