Jones v. . Franklin Estate

183 S.E. 732, 209 N.C. 585, 1936 N.C. LEXIS 303

• Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
• Decided: February 26, 1936
• Status: Published

Opinion

Pee Curiam.

Does the simple assignment of a judgment on the judgment docket entitle the assignee in a subsequent proceeding to bring in others, who were not parties to the original action, and subject them to liability for the payment of the judgment which had been rendered against the original debtor only? ¥e think not.

The statute (C. S., 219-e) provides that executors and trustees shall not personally be subject to liability as stockholders for stock held by the estate.

The mere assignment of a judgment transfers to the assignee all the rights and remedies of the assignor with respect to the judgment and carries with it the right to enforce the judgment by a resort to every legal or equitable remedy available to the assignor, but unless expressly provided for, this does not confer upon the assignee the additional right thereafter to subject to liability on the judgment others who were not parties to the original action, though the assignor, the original plaintiff, might have had a cause of action against them but forebore to pursue it. Independent and personal rights of the assignor, not incident to his status as judgment creditor in the particular judgment assigned, do not pass by assignment unless expressly included therein. 2 Freeman on Judgments, 2209; Redmond v. Staton, 116 N. C., 140; Timberlake v. Powell, 99 N. C., 233; Ward v. Haggard, 75 Ind., 381; Vicars v. Wampler, 51 S. E. (Va.), 737; Heyer v. Kaufenberg, 53 A. L. R., 285.

Tbe fact that the order making defendant Price a party was by consent could not be construed as an admission of liability to the plaintiff, nor as a waiver of his right to demur ore terms to the complaint.

The judgment sustaining the demurrer and dismissing the action is

Affirmed.