Hoke's Ex'r v. Carter's Adm'r
| Citation | 34 N.C. 324,12 Ired. 324 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of North Carolina |
| Decision Date | 31 August 1851 |
| Parties | J. F. HOKE'S EX'R. v. JAMES CARTER'S ADM'R. |
The legal effect of the sale and delivery of a bond, without endorsement, is not to pass the legal title to the purchaser, for the vendor may release it if he thinks proper, to the maker of the bond. But the purchaser is constituted the agent of the vendor, and the money vested in him as legal ownner, the moment it is collected; for the chose in action, of which the vendor was the legal owner, is extinguished by an act, which he had authorised to be done, to wit, the reception of the money. The money then vests in the purchaser, as legal owner, by force of the contract of sale, which thereby became executed.
Therefore, where such a purchaser obtained judgment in the name of the vendor, and the sheriff collected the judgment, and, after notice by the purchaser, paid the money to the vendor; Held, that he was, notwithstanding, answerable to the purchaser for the amount.
Appeal from the Superior Court of Law of Burke county, Spring Term, 1851, his Honor Judge SETTLE presiding.
This was Assumpsit for “money had and received.” One Fleming held a bond for $297 on one Holcomb and one Brigman. Fleming sold the bond to the plaintiff's testator, and delivered it to him without endorsement. The testator instituted suit on the bond, in the name of Fleming, and took judgment, from which there was an appeal; and the defendant's intestate was security for the appeal. There was judgment against Holcomb, Brigman, and the defendant's intestate. The testator sued out execution, directed to the Sheriff of Yancy, and put it into the hands of the defendant's intestate, who was then Sheriff of Yancy, and directed him to collect the money out of Brigman; and informed him that he (the testator) had bought the bond from Fleming, and was entitled to the money; and gave him special instructions not to pay the money to Fleming, but to pay it to him. The defendant's intestate received the money from Brigman. It was demanded by Fleming, who alleged, that there were certain conditions annexed to the sale of the bond; and the defendant's intestate paid it to him, taking a bond of indemnity. The plaintiff's testator demanded the money of the defendant's intestate, who refused to pay, on the ground that he had paid it to Fleming. The defendant's intestate endorsed on the execution, “satisfied,” and returned it to office. Both parties soon...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Redmond v. Staton
...for the money against the sheriff, and the court sustains his action upon the ground that when the money was collected it was his. Hoke v. Carter, 12 Ired. 324. We are now in a court of equity, as well as a court of law; and we admit that, at the first view of these cases, they seemed to su......
-
Redmond v. Staton
...money against the sheriff, and the court sustains his action upon the ground that when the money was collected it was his. Hoke v. Carter, 12 Ired. 324. We are now in a court of equity, as well as a court of law; and we admit that, at the first view of these cases, they seemed to support pl......
- Hice v. Cox
-
Bank Of Statesville v. Waddell
...by the payee, in whose name suit has been brought and judgment recovered, to receive the money when collected, is decided in Hoke v. Carter, 12 Ired. 324, in which Pearson, J., thus explains the relations between the parties: "The legal effect of the contract of sale and delivery of the bon......