Leach v. Greene

116 Mass. 534, 1875 Mass. LEXIS 31
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedJanuary 21, 1875
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 116 Mass. 534 (Leach v. Greene) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Leach v. Greene, 116 Mass. 534, 1875 Mass. LEXIS 31 (Mass. 1875).

Opinion

Endicott, J.

It is distinctly stated in the bill of exceptions that the plaintiff purchased certain choses in action belonging to a bankrupt’s estate at public auction, among which was the claim for the barrels, declared on in the writ. It was not therefore a sale of the barrels, as now contended by the plaintiff, but of a chose in action.

It has been uniformly held in this Commonwealth, that the.assignee of a chose in action cannot, in the absence of a promise to himself, maintain an action thereon in his own name, but may do so in the name of his assignor. Usher v. D'Wolfe, 13 Mass. 290. Foss v. Nutting, 14 Gray, 484. The same rule has been held to apply to a sale by an official assignee of a chose in action belonging to the estate of an insolvent debtor, and that, under the provisions of the insolvent law then in force, no right of action vested in the vendee of the assignee. Hay v. Green, 12 Cush. 282.

By the St. of 1859, c. 194, § 1, (Gen. Sts. c. 118, § 100,) it was expressly provided that any suit brought on a claim or demand sold by the assignee of an insolvent debtor shall be brought in the name of the purchaser, and that the fact of such sale should be set forth in the writ. See Cushman v. Davis 3 Allen, 99.

[537]*537An assignee under the bankrupt law of the United States, St. of 1867, c. 176, § 14, has the same power to deal with and dispose of choses in action vested in him, as the bankrupt might have had, if no assignment had been made. No special authority is given to the purchaser from such assignee to maintain a suit thereon in his own name.

There is no reason, therefore, for taking the case out of the settled rule in this Commonwealth, the lex fori must govern, and the ruling below is affirmed. Exceptions overruled.

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

Related

Spitz v. Schwartz
4 Mass. App. Div. 366 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div., 1939)
Universal Adjustment Corp. v. Midland Bank, Ltd., of London
184 N.E. 152 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1933)
Lewis v. Club Realty Co.
163 N.E. 172 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1928)
Levenbaum v. Hanover Trust Co.
148 N.E. 227 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1925)
Parnell v. Southern Ry. Co.
74 So. 437 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1917)
American Lithographic Co. v. Ziegler
103 N.E. 909 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1914)
Waters v. Spencer
44 Misc. 15 (New York Supreme Court, 1904)
Roads v. Webb
40 A. 128 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1898)
Baxter National Bank v. Talbot
13 L.R.A. 52 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1891)
Rogers v. Union Stone Co.
134 Mass. 31 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1883)
McNutt v. King
59 Ala. 597 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1877)
Burke v. United States
13 Ct. Cl. 231 (Court of Claims, 1877)
Atlantic National Bank v. Harris
118 Mass. 147 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1875)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
116 Mass. 534, 1875 Mass. LEXIS 31, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/leach-v-greene-mass-1875.