Kelley v. Hampton

133 P. 339, 22 Cal. App. 68, 1913 Cal. App. LEXIS 56
CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal
DecidedMay 10, 1913
DocketCiv. No. 1239.
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 133 P. 339 (Kelley v. Hampton) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Kelley v. Hampton, 133 P. 339, 22 Cal. App. 68, 1913 Cal. App. LEXIS 56 (Cal. Ct. App. 1913).

Opinion

HALL, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment rendered against appellant, and comes to this court upon the judgment-roll alone.

The action is in the usual and ordinary form brought by the 'plaintiff upon an assigned claim for goods sold and delivered at an agreed price by plaintiff’s assignor to defendants.

The court found all the issues against appellant, but found in favor of his codefendant.

*69 Besides finding in strict accordance with the allegations of the complaint that the claim was assigned to plaintiff, the court further found that such assignment was for collection only. It is upon this finding that appellant bases an argument that the judgment in favor of plaintiff is not supported by the findings. But an assignment for collection, without any consideration being paid by the assignee, vests the legal title in the assignee, which is sufficient to enable him to recover, though the assignor retains an equitable interest in the thing assigned. This is of no concern to the debtor. (Greig v. Riordan, 99 Cal. 316, [33 Pac. 913].)

No other point is presented by the record or urged for a reversal; and the judgment is therefore affirmed.

Lennon, P. J., and Kerrigan, J., concurred.

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

Related

Rae v. Cameron
114 P.2d 1060 (Montana Supreme Court, 1941)
Cohn v. Thompson
16 P.2d 364 (California Court of Appeal, 1932)
Cohn v. Thompson
128 Cal. App. Supp. 783 (Appellate Division of the Superior Court of California, 1932)
Elam v. Arzaga
10 P.2d 805 (California Court of Appeal, 1932)
Wright v. Shoenhair
280 P. 174 (California Court of Appeal, 1929)
Koepple v. Morrison
257 P. 590 (California Court of Appeal, 1927)
Clark v. Johnston
193 P. 864 (California Court of Appeal, 1920)
Ingle Manufacturing Co. v. Scales
172 P. 169 (California Court of Appeal, 1918)
Barlow v. Lande
147 P. 231 (California Court of Appeal, 1915)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
133 P. 339, 22 Cal. App. 68, 1913 Cal. App. LEXIS 56, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kelley-v-hampton-calctapp-1913.