Hayes v. Berdan
| Decision Date | 06 February 1891 |
| Citation | 47 N.J.E. 567,21 A. 339 |
| Parties | HAYES v. BERDAN et al. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Appeal from court of chancery; Van Fleet, Vice-Chancellor. See 17 Atl. Rep. 634.
George S. Hilton, for complainant.
John W. Griggs, for defendants.
Decree affirmed.
The complainant is the legatee under the will of Robert Hayes, deceased, of a debt owed by William Berdan, as administrator of William H. Hayes, deceased; but because the executrix of Robert Hayes has not assigned the debt to him, nor assented to his ownership or it, he has no legal title. His bill is exhibited against both the executrix and the debtor, so that he may have a discovery whether any part of the debt has been paid to the executrix, and may also have his right to the debt ascertained, and its payment to himself decreed. On demurrer, the bill was dismissed, on the ground that the complainant had a complete remedy by action at law against the debtor in the name of the executrix. Choses in action not being assignable at common law, the assignee of a debt had theoretically only an equitable interest in it. Nevertheless, from early times courts of law permitted such an assignee to sue for the debt in the name of the assignor, and protected his rights. Consequently courts of equity refused to entertain a bill presented by the assignee, when he sought merely to collect the legal debt. But where there are special circumstances connected with the vindication of his rights, which require the intervention of a court of equity, there, of course, he may seek its aid; and upon the principle that when a court of equity is properly invoked it will endeavor to do complete justice in the premises, the remedy in equity may embrace the collection of the debt, so as to avoid multiplicity of suits. Such circumstances, I think, appear in the present case. The complainant has no assignment of the debt, nor any evidence of his right which a court of law could consider. While, according to the allegations of his bill, that the debt was specifically bequeathed to him, and that it is not required to meet the debts of the testator, he is clearly entitled to the debt, yet, so far as appears, a court of law could not recognize his title, because it could not investigate the sufficiency of the testator's estate to satisfy his creditors, and would therefore be obliged to regard the executrix only as owner of the debt. I therefore think that he was justified in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sapery's Estate, In re, A--44
...655, 71 A. 286, 19 L.R.A.,N.S., 887 (E. & A.1908); Hayes v. Hayes' Ex'x, 45 N.J.Eq. 461, 17 A. 634 (Ch.1889), affirmed 47 N.J.Eq. 567, 21 A. 339 (E. & A.1890); Giannetti v. Smith, 66 N.J.L. 374, 49 A. 516 (Sup.Ct.1901), affirmed 67 N.J.L. 687, 52 A. 1131 (E. & A. 1902). In this regard, the ......
-
State v. Then
...assets of the estate is vested in the administrator pendente lite. Hayes v. Hayes, 45 N.J.Eq. 461, 463, 17 A. 634, affirmed Hayes v. Berdan, 47 N.J.Eq. 567, 21 A. 339; 24 C.J. 201. Hence when these assets were converted, and, as said before, there is ample evidence to support the finding th......
-
Phair v. Federal Deposit Ins. Corporation
...in his executors for the purposes of administration and distribution. Hayes v. Hayes, 45 N.J.Eq. 461, 17 A. 634; aff'd Hayes v. Berdan, 47 N.J.Eq. 567, 21 A. 339; Buchanan v. Buchanan, 75 N.J.Eq. 274, 71 A. 745, 22 L.R.A.,N.S., 454, 138 Am.St.Rep. 563, 20 Ann.Cas. 91; Child v. Wherry, 122 N......
-
Travers v. Reid
...of the executor to collect all of the assets of his decedent's estate. Hayes v. Hayes, 45 N.J.Eq. 461, 17 A. 634, affirmed Hayes v. Berdan, 47 N.J. Eq. 567, 21 A. 339; 23 Corpus Juris, 1189, § 423. And if, as a result of a suit at law, the bank paid the amount of the deposit to the executor......