Crist v. McDaniel

• Decision Date: 05 September 1905
• Parties: MARY C. CRIST, et al v. A. MCDANIEL.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

1905 OK 46

82 P. 991

15 Okla. 469

MARY C. CRIST, et al v. A. MCDANIEL.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided: September 5, 1905

Syllabus

¶0 ASSIGNMENT OF JUDGMENT--Passes What. Where a proceeding is brought in one county to enjoin the sale of property levied upon under a judgment rendered in another county upon a promissory note, and plaintiff in the injunction suit appeals from an order dissolving a temporary injunction, and executes a supersedeas bond to the sheriff and judgment creditor jointly, and the appeal in the injunction case is affirmed: Held, that an assignment of the judgment rendered in the action on the promissory note, which does not purport in terms to assign anything other than the judgment, will only convey such rights as are vested in the assignor by virtue of that particular judgment, and will not operate to pass to the assignee a right of action on the stay bond given in the injunction proceeding.

Error from the Probate Court of Caddo County; before G. B. Phelps, Trial Judge.

R. B. Forest, for plaintiffs in error.

Glitsch, Morgan & Glitsch, for defendant in error.

PANCOAST, J.

¶1 Judgment was recovered in the probate court of Cleveland county by W. T. Tate against Mary C. Crist, upon a certain promissory note. Execution was issued to the sheriff of Canadian county, and the judgment debtor brought an action in the district court of that county, to enjoin a sale of property levied upon by said sheriff under such execution. From an order dissolving a temporary injunction in that case, Mary Crist appealed and gave a supersedeas bond which ran jointly to Tate, judgment creditor in the suit in Cleveland county, and to the sheriff of Canadian county.

¶2 Pending appeal in the injunction case, Tate assigned the Cleveland county judgment to A. McDaniel, defendant in error, the written assignment of that judgment in no way referring to the stay bond or the judgment in the injunction suit. The appeal in that case was affirmed, and this action was brought upon the supersedeas bond by McDaniel, assignee, who claims that by the assignment of the judgment in Cleveland county he acquired a right of action on the bond in the injunction case in Canadian county.

¶3 Defendants below demurred generally to the petition, which was overruled. At the trial of the case, defendants objected to the introduction of any evidence under the petition on the ground it did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. They then objected to the introduction of specific evidence and at the close of plaintiff's evidence, demurred thereto. Each of these objections was overruled, and the court found for defendant in error for the amount of the judgment in the probate court of Cleveland county, with interest. From such judgment, plaintiffs in error have appealed.

¶4 The assignments of error relied upon are: First, that the assignment of the Cleveland county judgment did not operate to pass along with such judgment a right of action on the injunction bond; and second, if a right of action was passed by such assignment, that plaintiff was limited in his recovery by the terms of the bond respecting the damages recoverable thereunder. The first contention, however, we deem controlling, and if advisedly taken, is decisive of the case.

¶5 The bond in suit was made to indemnify A. A. Crosby, as sheriff, and W. T. Tate, against any damages they might sustain by reason of the appeal from the judgment in their favor in the district court of Canadian county in the injunction case, and runs to them jointly. There is no specific assignment of this bond by the obligees thereto, although the plaintiff below while on the stand declared himself the assignee of Tate's interest in...