Dawson Use of Carpenter v. Jones

7 Del. 412

Opinion

The Court,

Gilpin, Ch. J.,

charged the jury: After ad-

verting to the facts proved as before stated and the pleadings in the case, that if Dawson had not either by himself or some other person performed the entire contract and built and completed the house as he had agreed to do for the sum stipulated, the plaintiff was not entitled to recover, and the verdict should be for the defendant, although the action had been brought in his name for the use and benefit of Carpenter to whom he had sold and assigned the contract. But if the contract had been performed and the house had been built by him, or by his procurement, and the jury were further satisfied from the evidence that the contract was sold and assigned by Dawson to Carpenter before any of the execution attachments which had been produced and referred to in the case, had been served upon Jones, the defendant, and the latter had notice or knowledge of the sale or assignment of the contract by Dawson to Carpenter, before he answered on any of the attachments, then the plaintiff was entitled to recover in the action and their verdict should be in his favor.

The plaintiff had a verdict.