Pendleton v. Johnson

18 N.Y.S. 211, 21 N.Y. Civ. Proc. R. 272
The Superior Court of the City of New York and Buffalo·Decided June 11, 1891·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

McAdam, J.

The proofs are convincing that, as the assignor resided in Hew Jersey, he assigned his demand to the plaintiff, a resident of Hew York, to avoid the necessity of giving security for costs; that, while the legal title to the claim was put in the plaintiff to answer the purposes of the prosecution, (Sheridan v. Mayor, 68 N. Y. 30,) the equitable and beneficial interest remained in the assignor, and he is chargeable with the costs, under section 3247 of the Code.1 Slauson v. Watkins, 46 N. Y. Super. Ct. 172; Winants v. Blanchard, 12 N. Y. St. Rep. 384; Society v. Loomis, (Sup.) 3 N. Y. Supp. 572; Giles v. Halbert, 12 N. Y. 32; Whitney v. Cooper, 1 Hill, 629; Colvard v. Oliver, 7 Wend. 497; In re Tyng, 17 Wkly. Dig. 234.

The return of the execution unsatisfied is sufficient evidence of inability to collect from the assignee. Perrigo v. Dowdall, 25 Hun, 234. Motion to charge assignor with costs granted.

Footnotes

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

Pendleton v. Johnson, 18 N.Y.S. 211, 21 N.Y. Civ. Proc. R. 272 (superctny 1891).

18 N.Y.S. 211 (Pendleton v. Johnson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Montanye v. Montgomery
19 N.Y.S. 655 (New York Court of Common Pleas, 1892)
Metropolitan Addressing & Mailing Co. v. Goodenough
18 N.Y.S. 212 (Superior Court of New York, 1891)