Cohn v. Guardian Assurance Co.

Missouri Court of Appeals

Cohn v. Guardian Assurance Co.

68 Mo. App. 376, 1897 Mo. App. LEXIS 365

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 11, 1897

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 68 Mo. App. 376 (Cohn v. Guardian Assurance Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Missouri Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cohn v. Guardian Assurance Co., 68 Mo. App. 376, 1897 Mo. App. LEXIS 365 (Mo. Ct. App. 1897).

Pincite

Opinion

Ellison, J.

This is an action on a fire insurance policy. At the close of the trial the circuit court directed a verdict for defendant.

[379]*379acet?onflghtof Prior to the commencement of this suit and after the loss plaintiff made an assignment for the benefit of creditors whereby he conveyed all his prop-debts, accounts, “and- things in action” to one F. E. Carr. The legal effect of this assignment was to vest in the assignee the subject-matter of this suit, the right of action against this defendant for a loss covered by the policy. St. George Church v. Branch, 120 Mo. 247. From which it follows that plaintiff had no right to maintain the action.

poutyfjifh?1 - of action. But the plaintiff claims that the claim under this policy had been by writing assigned to A. Frankenthal & Brother, of St. Louis, for the benefit of creditors prior to the general assignment for creditors to Carr. If there was a valid assign- # ment to Frankentnal &' Brother m trust for creditors which was not covered by the assignment to Carr, it only shows that plaintiff’s right of action had been parted with to another party and still leaves him without right to maintain this action.

We have been cited to authority showing that plaintiff had the right to make the assignment to Frankenthal & Brother, but if this be so it does not follow that plaintiff can afterward maintain a suit for the thing assigned. Judgment affirmed.

All concur.

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

Ellison, J.

This is an action on a fire insurance policy. At the close of the trial the circuit court directed a verdict for defendant.

[379]*379acet?onflghtof Prior to the commencement of this suit and after the loss plaintiff made an assignment for the benefit of creditors whereby he conveyed all his prop-debts, accounts, “and- things in action” to one F. E. Carr. The legal effect of this assignment was to vest in the assignee the subject-matter of this suit, the right of action against this defendant for a loss covered by the policy. St. George Church v. Branch, 120 Mo. 247. From which it follows that plaintiff had no right to maintain the action.

poutyfjifh?1 - of action. But the plaintiff claims that the claim under this policy had been by writing assigned to A. Frankenthal & Brother, of St. Louis, for the benefit of creditors prior to the general assignment for creditors to Carr. If there was a valid assign- # ment to Frankentnal &' Brother m trust for creditors which was not covered by the assignment to Carr, it only shows that plaintiff’s right of action had been parted with to another party and still leaves him without right to maintain this action.

We have been cited to authority showing that plaintiff had the right to make the assignment to Frankenthal & Brother, but if this be so it does not follow that plaintiff can afterward maintain a suit for the thing assigned. Judgment affirmed.

All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

68 Mo. App. 376, 1897 Mo. App. LEXIS 365, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cohn-v-guardian-assurance-co-moctapp-1897.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack