Irvine v. McDougall

Ninth Circuit

Irvine v. McDougall

235 F. 888, 149 C.C.A. 200, 4 Alaska Fed. 430, 1916 U.S. App. LEXIS 2235

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedSeptember 5, 1916

DocketNo. 2730

StatusPublished

This text of 235 F. 888 (Irvine v. McDougall) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Irvine v. McDougall, 235 F. 888, 149 C.C.A. 200, 4 Alaska Fed. 430, 1916 U.S. App. LEXIS 2235 (9th Cir. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

GILBERT,. Circuit Judge

(after stating the facts as above).

We hold that the decree of the court below is erroneous for the reasons': First, the rule-that the right to acquire a lien is personal and not transferable, and is destroyed by assignment, does not apply to an assignment made, as in the-present cáse, for the purpose.of enabling the assignee to maintain a suit. Skyrme v. Occidental Mill Co., 8 Nev. 219; House v. Schulze, 21 Tex.Civ.App. 243, 52 S.W. 654. Second, there was no delivery of the instru[432]*432ment of assignment to the appellant until after the liens had been filed, and delivery is essential to the completion of an assignment. 5 Corpus Juris, 907; Ritter v. Stevenson, 7 Cal. 388; Leonard v. Adm’r of Kebler, 50 Ohio St. 444, 34 N.E. 659; Govin v. De Miranda, 76 Hun, 414, 27 N.Y.S. 1049; Buehler v. Galt, 35 Ill.App. 225; Tatum v. Ballard, 94 Va. 370, 26 S.E. 871.

The decree is reversed, and the cause is remanded for further proceedings, and with instructions to permit the plaintiff to file a supplemental complaint alleging the transfer to him of the lien of King.

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

GILBERT,. Circuit Judge

(after stating the facts as above).

We hold that the decree of the court below is erroneous for the reasons': First, the rule-that the right to acquire a lien is personal and not transferable, and is destroyed by assignment, does not apply to an assignment made, as in the-present cáse, for the purpose.of enabling the assignee to maintain a suit. Skyrme v. Occidental Mill Co., 8 Nev. 219; House v. Schulze, 21 Tex.Civ.App. 243, 52 S.W. 654. Second, there was no delivery of the instru[432]*432ment of assignment to the appellant until after the liens had been filed, and delivery is essential to the completion of an assignment. 5 Corpus Juris, 907; Ritter v. Stevenson, 7 Cal. 388; Leonard v. Adm’r of Kebler, 50 Ohio St. 444, 34 N.E. 659; Govin v. De Miranda, 76 Hun, 414, 27 N.Y.S. 1049; Buehler v. Galt, 35 Ill.App. 225; Tatum v. Ballard, 94 Va. 370, 26 S.E. 871.

The decree is reversed, and the cause is remanded for further proceedings, and with instructions to permit the plaintiff to file a supplemental complaint alleging the transfer to him of the lien of King.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

235 F. 888, 149 C.C.A. 200, 4 Alaska Fed. 430, 1916 U.S. App. LEXIS 2235, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/irvine-v-mcdougall-ca9-1916.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack