Lay v. Lay

Supreme Court

Lay v. Lay

248 U.S. 24, 39 S. Ct. 13, 63 L. Ed. 103, 1918 U.S. LEXIS 1716

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedNovember 18, 1918

Docket633

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 248 U.S. 24 (Lay v. Lay) 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

Lay v. Lay, 248 U.S. 24, 39 S. Ct. 13, 63 L. Ed. 103, 1918 U.S. LEXIS 1716 (1918).

Pincite

Opinion

Memorandum for the court by

The Chief Justice. .

The right to a fund resulting from the payment of an appropriation by Congress to satisfy a judgment for the value of property taken during the Civil War is the issue here involved. The contestants are the heirs at law of the original claimant and persons holding, under an assignment by her of all her right to the claim or fund. The court enforced the assignment. .

Under the assumption that the claimant was prohibited by the law of the United States (§ 3477, Rev. Stats.) from making ah assignment, the heirs at law prosecute error to correct the federal error thus assumed to have been corn*mitted. But the assumption indulged in as to the effect of the law of the United States is without merit; McGowan v. Parish, 237 U. S. 285, 294, and cases cited. This renders it unnecessary to consider whether, if the heirs at law were entitled to the fund, they would be liable to pay the full sum of the attorney’s fee contracted for by the transferee and the duty to pay which the transferee and those in privity do not dispute.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Memorandum for the court by

The Chief Justice. .

The right to a fund resulting from the payment of an appropriation by Congress to satisfy a judgment for the value of property taken during the Civil War is the issue here involved. The contestants are the heirs at law of the original claimant and persons holding, under an assignment by her of all her right to the claim or fund. The court enforced the assignment. .

Under the assumption that the claimant was prohibited by the law of the United States (§ 3477, Rev. Stats.) from making ah assignment, the heirs at law prosecute error to correct the federal error thus assumed to have been corn*mitted. But the assumption indulged in as to the effect of the law of the United States is without merit; McGowan v. Parish, 237 U. S. 285, 294, and cases cited. This renders it unnecessary to consider whether, if the heirs at law were entitled to the fund, they would be liable to pay the full sum of the attorney’s fee contracted for by the transferee and the duty to pay which the transferee and those in privity do not dispute.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

248 U.S. 24, 39 S. Ct. 13, 63 L. Ed. 103, 1918 U.S. LEXIS 1716, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lay-v-lay-scotus-1918.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack