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