Austin v. Michiels
| Decision Date | 01 July 1885 |
| Citation | 6 Haw. 595 |
| Parties | JONA. AUSTIN, ASSIGNEE IN BANKRUPTCY OF J. P. AMARAL v. CHAS. MICHIELS. |
| Court | Hawaii Supreme Court |
August 22d, 1885.
TRESPASS.
Syllabus by the Court
An action for damages caused to the credit of a trader by the conversion of his goods by a creditor, whereby the trader was forced into bankruptcy, does not pass to the assignee.
The Plaintiff and F. M. Hatch, for plaintiff.
L. A Thurston, for defendant.
BEFORE MCCULLY, J.
DECISION
The plaintiff brings action of trespass upon a declaration that the defendant with force and arms, etc., entered the bankrupt's premises and took and carried away all the stock of goods therein belonging to said bankrupt, and converted the same to his own use, whereby the business of said bankrupt was broken up and said bankrupt suffered great loss and damage, and was injured in his credit and good name and was forced to go into bankruptcy to the damage of the estate of said bankrupt, etc.
Demurrer That the cause of action does not pass to the assignee.
It is not doubtful that the assignee of a bankrupt may bring suit for the goods, or the value, of the bankrupt, wrongfully taken. Section 12 of the Bankruptcy Act of 1884, authorizes the assignee to bring suits for debts due the bankrupt, and also any suit which has for its object the recovery of any portion of the bankrupt's property. But assignees can take only such choses in action as are of an assignable nature. An action for assault or for seduction could not pass to executors or assigns, and we may say generally that no action of which the gist consists of injury to the feelings or in which injury or insult is an aggravation, can be assigned, voluntarily or by operation of law. The allegation here is of injury to the bankrupt's credit, whereby he was driven into bankruptcy.
In Brewer vs. Dew, 11 M. & W., 625, in an action of trespass brought by assignees in bankruptcy for seizing and taking the bankrupt's goods under a false and unfounded claim of debt by which he was annoyed and prejudiced in his business, and believed by his customers to be insolvent, and certain lodgers left his house: Held not to pass to assignees in bankruptcy under the statute that all the personal estate and effects of the bankrupt vest absolutely in the assignees and the act is construed beneficially for creditors. The test in this case was that under the declaration the jury...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tmj Hawaii, Inc. v. Nippon Trust Bank
...NTB and KDW next contend that Hawai`i law contemplates limits on the assignability of claims. On that score, they cite Austin v. Michiels, 6 Haw. 595, 1885 WL 5068 (1885), in which this court held that a tort action for damages caused to commercial credit and business reputation was not "of......
-
Cuson v. Maryland Cas. Co.
...claims are not assignable. See Murphy v. Allstate Insurance Co., 17 Cal.3d 937, 553 P.2d 584, 587, 132 Cal.Rptr. 424 (1976); Austin v. Michels, 6 Haw. 595 (1885). Injuries which are purely personal in nature, such as emotional distress, cannot be transferred to another. Murphy, 553 P.2d at ......
-
Sprague v. California Pacific Bankers & Insurance Ltd.
...that the general damages were personal and therefore unassignable. In support of this argument, the Petitioners cite Austin v. Michiels, 6 Haw. 595, 595, 1885 WL 5068 (1885) ("[N]o action of which the gist consists of injury to the feelings or in which injury or insult is an aggravation, ca......