Heard v. Turner
Decision Date | 09 January 1920 |
Citation | 125 N.E. 596,234 Mass. 526 |
Parties | HEARD v. TURNER. SAME v. CALKINS. |
Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Municipal Court of Boston, Appellate Division.
Actions by Arthur M. Heard against Edward T. Turner and Frederick W. Calkins, resulting in findings for plaintiff. The cases were reported to the appellate division of the municipal court of the city of Boston, which dismissed the reports, and defendants appeal. Orders dismissing reports affirmed.
P. H. Kelley, of Boston, for appellants.
Frederick W. Doring, of Boston, for appellee.
It is settled that until extended in books of record docket entries are admissible to prove the recovery of a domestic judgment which cannot be attacked collaterally, but is reversible only on writ of error. McGrath v. Seagrave, 2 Allen, 443, 79 Am. Dec. 797;Central Bridge v. Lowell, 15 Gray, 106;Joyce v. Thompson, 229 Mass. 106, 118 N. E. 184. The judgment obtained against each defendant consequently must be held as valid and conclusive. It is next urged that the parol assignments of the judgment creditor to his counsel in payment for professional services and in whose interest the actions are brought and prosecuted are not only invalid, but the assignee cannot enforce the judgment by an action in his own name. It was a question of fact whether the judgment creditor has transferred his rights as alleged, and the finding of the trial judge that the agreements had been proved was warranted by the evidence. The assignee accordingly acquiredthe beneficial ownership of the judgments. Norton v. Piscataqua Ins. Co., 111 Mass. 532, 535. The actions were begun in the name of the assignee. But even if R. L. c. 173, § 4, requires the assignment of a non-negotiable legal chose in action to be in writing, or the assignee cannot maintain an action thereon in his own name, yet where he has the sole beneficial interest as in the cases at bar he can sue in the name of the assignor, and the amendment substituting the judgment creditor as plaintiff, with the averment that the action is brought for the use and benefit of the assignee was properly allowed. Lane v. Lane, 8 Allen, 350, 353;Wiggin v. Cumings, 8 Allen, 353, 355;Hewins v. Baker, 161 Mass. 320, 324, 37 N. E. 441;Jump v. Leon, 192 Mass. 511, 513, 514, 78 N. E. 532,116 Am. St. Rep. 265;Kelly v. Greany, 216 Mass. 296, 103 N. E. 779;Noble v. Brooks, 224 Mass. 288, 112 N. E. 649. The defendants also are fully protected from any...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Harvard Trust Co.
... ... Page 678 ... 430) it would be 'a question of fact whether the * * * [assignor] had transferred his rights' (emphasis supplied). See Heard v. Calkins, 234 Mass. 526, 529-530, 125 N.E. 596. See also Swift-McNutt Co. of Rhode Island v. Cohen, 264 Mass. 48, 50-51, 161 N.E. 810; ... ...
-
Piper v. Childs
... ... 765] petition to be ... allowed to intervene and to receive any execution which may ... issue in favor of the plaintiff. This petition was heard by a ... judge other than the one who heard the action for deceit, and ... was denied, subject to the exception of the petitioner. The ... ...
-
Savage v. Walshe
... ... in fact sent to the defendants in the earlier action or to the surety on the bond to dissolve the attachment, and that the defendants were not heard in relation thereto.At the trial in the superior court a verdict was directed for the plaintiff. By consent of parties the amount for which execution ... ...
-
Goldman v. Noxon Chem. Prods. Co.
... ... Kelly v. Greany, 216 Mass. 296, 103 N. E. 779.Heard v. Calkins, 234 Mass. 526, 530, 125 N. E. 596;Rogers v. Murch, 253 Mass. 467, 149 N. E. 202;Christensen v. Bremer, 263 Mass. 129, 133, 160 N. E. 410 ... ...