Cline v. Edwards

Court of Appeals of Kentucky

Cline v. Edwards

7 Ky. Op. 522, 1874 Ky. LEXIS 185

DecidedFebruary 21, 1874

StatusPublished

This text of 7 Ky. Op. 522 (Cline v. Edwards) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Kentucky primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cline v. Edwards, 7 Ky. Op. 522, 1874 Ky. LEXIS 185 (Ky. Ct. App. 1874).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Judge Lindsay:

An assignee has no right of action at law against a remote assignor. He must look to the party who assigned to him-. If the immediate assignor be a nonresident, of if after suit prosecuted with proper diligence nothing can be recovered from him, the holder of the assigned note may, by a proper proceeding in equity, be substituted to his rights against a remote assignor, or possibly he may upon proper averments- be allowed to use his assignor’s name in a suit at law, against any one bound to him by a contract of assignment. The petition in this case fails to disclose any- of the above suggested reasons for joining the remote assignor, Cline* as a co-defendant with Vittetoe. No cause of action being set out against Cline, the judgment as to him is erroneous. It is therefore reversed, and the cause remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Opinion by

Judge Lindsay:

An assignee has no right of action at law against a remote assignor. He must look to the party who assigned to him-. If the immediate assignor be a nonresident, of if after suit prosecuted with proper diligence nothing can be recovered from him, the holder of the assigned note may, by a proper proceeding in equity, be substituted to his rights against a remote assignor, or possibly he may upon proper averments- be allowed to use his assignor’s name in a suit at law, against any one bound to him by a contract of assignment. The petition in this case fails to disclose any- of the above suggested reasons for joining the remote assignor, Cline* as a co-defendant with Vittetoe. No cause of action being set out against Cline, the judgment as to him is erroneous. It is therefore reversed, and the cause remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

7 Ky. Op. 522, 1874 Ky. LEXIS 185, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cline-v-edwards-kyctapp-1874.