Union Trust Co. v. Walker

107 U.S. 596, 2 S. Ct. 299, 27 L. Ed. 490, 17 Otto 596, 1882 U.S. LEXIS 1253
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
DecidedMarch 12, 1883
Docket1150
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 107 U.S. 596 (Union Trust Co. v. Walker) 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
Union Trust Co. v. Walker, 107 U.S. 596, 2 S. Ct. 299, 27 L. Ed. 490, 17 Otto 596, 1882 U.S. LEXIS 1253 (1883).

Opinion

Mr. Cheer Justice Waite

delivered the opinion of the court.

This case differs from Union Trust Company v. Souther, ante, p. 591, only in the fact that Walker, the present intervenor and appellee, is the assignee by purchase' from- the original holders of the claims he seeks to have paid, and one of the questions certified is whether, being an assignee and not an original holder, he is entitled to payment. We have ho hesitation in answering this question in the affirmative. As was said in Fosdick v. Schall, 99 U. S. 235, 253, these creditors are paid not because they have in law a lien on the mortgaged property or the income, but- because in equity the earnings of the company constitute a fund for the payment of the expenses which their claims represént, before any income arises which ought to be applied to the discharge of the mortgage debt. Under such circumstances, it- is a matter of no importance that the original creditor has parted with the claim. The right is one that attaches to the debt and not to the person of the original creditor. Consequently the right passes with an assignment of the debt.

Decree affirmed.

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

Related

In re Boston & Maine Corp.
634 F.2d 1359 (First Circuit, 1980)
Union Trust Co. v. Southern Sawmills & Lumber Co.
166 F. 193 (Fourth Circuit, 1908)
In re Bennett
153 F. 673 (Sixth Circuit, 1907)
Norman & Co. v. Edington
115 Tenn. 309 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1905)
Carlisle v. Mercantile Trust Co.
109 F. 177 (Sixth Circuit, 1901)
Smith v. Egan
80 Mo. App. 56 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1899)
Edmunds v. Illinois Cent. R.
80 F. 78 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern Iowa, 1897)
Finance Co. of Pennsylvania v. Charleston
49 F. 693 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of South Carolina, 1892)
Blair v. St. Louis, H. & K. R. Co.
22 F. 471 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Missouri, 1884)
Central Trust Co. v. Texas & St. L. Ry. in Missouri & Arkansas
22 F. 135 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Missouri, 1884)
Burnham v. Bowen
111 U.S. 776 (Supreme Court, 1884)
Blair v. St. Louis, H. & K. R.
19 F. 861 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Missouri, 1884)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
107 U.S. 596, 2 S. Ct. 299, 27 L. Ed. 490, 17 Otto 596, 1882 U.S. LEXIS 1253, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/union-trust-co-v-walker-scotus-1883.