Davenport v. Woodbridge
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
Tins case was assumpsit on a note or due-bill made by the defendant dated February 2, 1827, for the payment of twenty-nine dollars iti wool skins and fur, to the plaintiff; and it came up by exceptions taken in the court below to the opinion of Perham J. It was referred, in the court below, to Mr. Boutette, who made a special report of facts; stating that the due-bill had been regularly assigned by the plaintiff’ to John Otis, Esq. who addressed to the defendant a letter…
Read the full summary
Tins case was assumpsit on a note or due-bill made by the defendant dated February 2, 1827, for the payment of twenty-nine dollars iti wool skins and fur, to the plaintiff; and it came up by exceptions taken in the court below to the opinion of Perham J. It was referred, in the court below, to Mr. Boutette, who made a special report of facts; stating that the due-bill had been regularly assigned by the plaintiff’ to John Otis, Esq. who addressed to the defendant a letter informing him of the assignment; which letter the defendant received in September, 1827 ; — that before this time the…
1Opinion of the Court
Weston J.
delivered the opinion of the Court».
The common law did not permit the assignment of a chose inaction. The technical reasons upon which this was founded, have so far given way to the necessities. and convenience of social life, that such an assignment is now held to pass an equitable interest which a court of law will protect and sustain. Care is taken however that in this transaction, the party indebted shall not be a sufferer. Thus, although upon the assignment, the original creditor ceases to be, for any beneficial purpose, the owner of the demand, and cannot receive it, or any…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Continental Purchasing Co. v. Van Raalte Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1937
- Seger v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1902