Hydraulic Press Brick Co. v. Saville
| Decision Date | 31 January 1876 |
| Citation | 1 Mo.App. 96 |
| Parties | HYDRAULIC PRESS BRICK COMPANY, Appellant, v. B. S. SAVILLE, Respondent. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Where an account is assigned in such a way as to specify the character of the fund and an intention to pass the whole debt, it is such an assignment as to entitle the assignee to sue on it.
APPEAL from the St. Louis Circuit Court.
Reversed and final judgment entered.
G. A. Castleman, for appellant, cited: Beach v. Raymond, 1 E. D. Smith (N. Y.), 406; 2 E. D. Smith (N. Y.), 496; Mills v. Fox, 4 E. D. Smith (N. Y.), 220; 3 Stew. (Ala.) 344; Moore v. Penn, 5 Ala. 135; Agee v. Midlock, 25 Ala. 281; Beldu v. Muker, 47 N. Y. 307; Bank of Virginia v. Warren, 7 Hill, 91; Hoyt v. Thompson, 1 Seld. 320; Walker v. Mauro, 18 Mo. 564; Bank of Commerce v. Bogy, 44 Mo. 13; Blinn v. Pierce, 20 Vt. 25; Edwards v. Daly, 14 La. An. 384; Rodick v. Gandall, 15 Eng. Law & Eq. 221; Mandeville v. Welsh, 5 Wheat. 277.
E. P. Johnson, for respondent, cited: Ford v. Angelrodt, 37 Mo. 56, 57.
This is an appeal from a justice of the peace. The suit is for $135, said to be a balance due Maunder & Handcock by defendant, on account of house in McRee city, which account, it is claimed, was assigned by Maunder & Handcock to plaintiff.
On the trial in the Circuit Court, after proof of incorporation, plaintiff offered evidence tending to show the indebtedness of defendant to Maunder & Handcock, their copartnership, and the signature of the firm name by one of the firm to the following order:
St. Louis, Mo., Sept. 25, 1873.
MR. B. S. SAVILLE: Please pay to Hydraulic Press Brick Co. one hundred thirty-five dollars, being amount due us on your house in McRee city.
MAUNDER & HANDCOCK.
The order was then offered and admitted, defendant objecting on the ground that it was no assignment of the account sued on. Evidence was offered tending to disprove items in the account of Maunder & Handcock against Saville to the amount of $55. Judgment was for defendant. The case was tried by the court without a jury.
If the court was right in admitting the order offered in evidence, it is manifest that judgment ought to have gone for plaintiff for at least $80, the amount admitted to be due by defendant, Saville, to Maunder & Handcock at the date of the alleged assignment of the order.
The only question in the case is whether or no the paper offered in evidence was such an assignment of the account as entitled plaintiff to sue...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Friedman v. Griffith
...247; Kimball v. Donald, 20 Mo. 577, 64 Am. Dec. 209; Walker v. Mauro, 18 Mo. 564; Boyer v. Hamilton, 21 Mo. App. 524; Hydraulic Press Brick Co. v. Saville, 1 Mo. App. 96. For this reason plaintiffs' instruction No. 1 was not erroneous in that it omitted to submit the question of whether def......
-
Lee v. Robinson
...Doane, 2 Allen, 541; Kingman v. Perkins, 105 Mass. 111; St. Johns v. Charles, Id. 262; Gibson v. Cooke, 20 Pick. 15; Hydraulic Press Brick Co. v. Saville, 1 Mo. App. 96. As such, under our decisions, it was valid against the plaintiff if made before the attachment, even if the garnishee did......
-
Cummings v. Ruckert
...by Ruckert, as evidenced by his order upon back of the receipt which operated as an assignment of the entire fund.-- Hydraulic Press Brick Co. v. Saville, 1 Mo. App. 96. BAKEWELL, J., delivered the opinion of the court. The petition in this case alleges that plaintiff is a judgment creditor......