Littlefield v. Storey
New York Supreme Court
THIS was an action of debt. The declaration contained two counts, on two obligations for 100 dollars each. The defendant pleaded non est factum, and that, on the 1st day of August, 1806, he paid to the plaintiff, the money due on the obligations.
Read the full summary
THIS was an action of debt. The declaration contained two counts, on two obligations for 100 dollars each. The defendant pleaded non est factum, and that, on the 1st day of August, 1806, he paid to the plaintiff, the money due on the obligations. The plaintiff replied, that before the commencement of the present suit, and before the said 1st day of August, 1806, he sold and assigned over the said obligations to one Z. R. Shepherd, to have and receive the money due thereon to his own use, and did authorise him, in the name of him, the plaintiff, to demand and receive the same to the use and…
1Per curiam
This is a clear case. It has been decided, that this court will recognise and protect the rights of an assignee of a chose in action.
In the case of Andrews v. Beecher,* * it was held, that a release by the obligee of a bond, after an assignment* and notice, was a nullity.† : 1
Judgment for the plaintiff.
Decided in July, 1800, and recognised in the case of Wardell v. Eden, 1 Johns. 532. in note.
See also Legh v. Legh, l Bos. & Pull. 447.
2Cited by15 opinions
- In re the Probate of a Paper Propounded as the Last Will & Testament of ZimmermanNew York Surrogate's Court · 1918
- Shriner v. Lamborn ex rel.SmithCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1858
- Sammis v. Wightman ex rel. MarcherSupreme Court of Florida · 1893
- Boyd v. AndersonTennessee Supreme Court · 1809
- Gleason v. Northwestern Mutual Life InsuranceNew York Court of Appeals · 1911
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.