Harper v. Butler

Supreme Court

Harper v. Butler

27 U.S. 239, 7 L. Ed. 410, 2 Pet. 239, 1829 U.S. LEXIS 401

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedMarch 18, 1829

StatusPublished

Cited by27 cases

This text of 27 U.S. 239 (Harper v. Butler) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Harper v. Butler, 27 U.S. 239, 7 L. Ed. 410, 2 Pet. 239, 1829 U.S. LEXIS 401 (1829).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr Chief Justice Marshall

delivered the opinion of the Court.

This is an action of debt brought by the plaintiff in error, in the court of the United States for the district of Mississippi, as the assignee of Henry Clay, executor of James Morrison deceased. The defendant pleaded in abatement, that the will of James Morrison had not been proved or recorded in the state of Mississippi, nor had letters testamentary therein been granted to Henry Clay the executor. To this plea there was a replication, which set. out the probate of the will in the.state of Kentucky, the letters testamentary to the executor, and the assignment, in the state of Kentucky, of the note on which the action was brought to the plaintiff in error. To this replication, the defendant .demurred. The court gave judgment for the defendant, and the plaintiff has sued out this writ of erjror.

The district, court proceeded on tne idea that the executor could not transfer a chose in action in Kentucky, because the obligor did hot reside in that state. This court supposes the law to be otherwise. The assignment in KenV tacky could not enable the assignee to sue in the courts of Mississippi, unless the law of the court. authorized an as-signee to sue in his own name. But since this is permitted in the courts of Mississippi, the plea in abatement cannot be sustained.

The judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded to the district court with directions to over-rule the demurrer.

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

Mr Chief Justice Marshall

delivered the opinion of the Court.

This is an action of debt brought by the plaintiff in error, in the court of the United States for the district of Mississippi, as the assignee of Henry Clay, executor of James Morrison deceased. The defendant pleaded in abatement, that the will of James Morrison had not been proved or recorded in the state of Mississippi, nor had letters testamentary therein been granted to Henry Clay the executor. To this plea there was a replication, which set. out the probate of the will in the.state of Kentucky, the letters testamentary to the executor, and the assignment, in the state of Kentucky, of the note on which the action was brought to the plaintiff in error. To this replication, the defendant .demurred. The court gave judgment for the defendant, and the plaintiff has sued out this writ of erjror.

The district, court proceeded on tne idea that the executor could not transfer a chose in action in Kentucky, because the obligor did hot reside in that state. This court supposes the law to be otherwise. The assignment in KenV tacky could not enable the assignee to sue in the courts of Mississippi, unless the law of the court. authorized an as-signee to sue in his own name. But since this is permitted in the courts of Mississippi, the plea in abatement cannot be sustained.

The judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded to the district court with directions to over-rule the demurrer.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

27 U.S. 239, 7 L. Ed. 410, 2 Pet. 239, 1829 U.S. LEXIS 401, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harper-v-butler-scotus-1829.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack