Webber v. Truax
New York Marine Court
Appeal from judgment entered upon a dismissal of the complaint. The facts are substantially these: Neil McCallum & Co. had a claim against C. H. Cutler for $68.08, which they assigned to the plaintiff orí June 14, 1879. On June 16, 1879 (two days after the assignment of this particular claim to the plaintiff), McCallum & Co., the assignors, made a general assignment for the benefit of creditors to one Silver, who was subsequently removed, and the defendant, Charles H. Truax,…
Read the full summary
Appeal from judgment entered upon a dismissal of the complaint. The facts are substantially these: Neil McCallum & Co. had a claim against C. H. Cutler for $68.08, which they assigned to the plaintiff orí June 14, 1879. On June 16, 1879 (two days after the assignment of this particular claim to the plaintiff), McCallum & Co., the assignors, made a general assignment for the benefit of creditors to one Silver, who was subsequently removed, and the defendant, Charles H. Truax, substituted in his place. It appears that the plaintiff had indorsed four notes for the accommodation of McCallum &…
1Opinion of the CourtMcAdam, J.
I can discover no legal ground for holding the assignment to the plaintiff void per se. It was in writing, duly executed and delivered by the assignors to the plaintiff. It was given to him to secure liabilities which he had assumed for them, and which their subsequent failure, two days after-wards, proves they knew they would be unable to discharge.
The plaintiff in consequence was obliged to, and did before the trial, pay two of said obligations, amounting to more than the assigned claim. The assignment so made was certainly good against the debtor, who, finding the plaintiff and the general…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Southard v. . BennerNew York Court of Appeals · 1878
- Rupp v. BlanchardNew York Supreme Court · 1861
- Read v. WorthingtonThe Superior Court of New York City · 1862