Leahi v. Bridget Dugdale's Adm'x
| Decision Date | 31 March 1863 |
| Citation | 34 Mo. 99 |
| Parties | PATRICK LEAHI et al., Respondents, v. BRIDGET DUGDALE's ADMINISTRATRIX, Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court.
This suit is the same as heretofore decided in this court, and reported in 27 Mo. 487.
Dugdale contracted with the Olive-street Plank Road Company to build certain sections of the work. Dugdale afterwards by contract, under seal with M. O'Leary and J. B. Neenan, sub-let to them sections eighteen and nineteen, to be completed in conformity with his contract with the company.
O'Leary & Neenan in January A. D. 1855, assigned their contract with Dugdale to plaintiffs. O'Leary was not present, nor was any testimony offered to show that he knew of it or acquiesced in it; defendant showed that, after its alleged execution, O'Leary, in ignorance of it, wrote to Dugdale directing a particular debt to be paid.
The work proceeded; but was not completed in time pursuant to the contract, and a reclamation of damages was made by the company. The consideration of this recoupment was excluded from the jury, because subsequent to the notice to Dugdale of the assignment of the contract by O'Leary & Neenan to plaintiffs.
At the trial the plaintiffs read in evidence the contract between Dugdale and the Plank Road Company--next that between Dugdale and O'Leary & Neenan.
In support of the assignment by O'Leary & Neenan to them, plaintiffs called Wm. C. Jamison, who testified that he had drawn up the assignment; that it was executed by J. B. Neenan, (the other partner not being present at the time,) and no authority was shown for Neenan to sign his co-partner O'Leary's name.
Plaintiffs thereupon read the assignment, dated January 19, 1855, to the jury. It was thus signed: “by James B. Neenan [seal], Michael O'Leary [[[[[seal], James B. Neenan [seal].”
Defendant objected to its being read upon the ground that there was no proof of its execution by O'Leary, but the objection was overruled.
No other proof of notice to Dugdale of the assignment was given than by McCartney, one of the plaintiffs' witnesses. He recites a conversation wherein one of the plaintiffs called for the estimates, and Dugdale flatly refused to recognize them or any one but the original parties, and that if plaintiffs proceeded with the work, it would be at their peril.
Plaintiffs offered proof of the quantity of work done, and of the payments made for it to Dugdale by the company. Defendant offered evidence of payments to different persons on debts of O'Leary & Neenan, many of them on garnishments issued on judgments against O'Leary & Neenan, some of these payments were before others after the assignment of the contract to plaintiffs.
The plaintiffs objected to any evidence of payments made after the date...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gordon v. Jefferson City
...It is well-settled law that claims of the kind in issue are transferable by assignment. [McPike v. McPherson, 41 Mo. 521; Leahi v. Dugdale's Admr., 34 Mo. 99, Mo. 518; State v. Heckart, 49 Mo.App. 280; see also, R. S. 1899--Contracts and Promises--ch. 10, p. 307; Paving Co. v. Prather's Adm......
- Adler v. Kansas City, Springfield & Memphis Railroad Co.
-
Securities Inv. Co. v. International Shoe Co.
...priority over that of plaintiff upon the giving of prior notice to defendant. Richards v. Griggs, 16 Mo. 416, 57 Am. Dec. 240; Leahi v. Dugdale's Adm'x, 34 Mo. 99; Houser v. Richardson, Adm'r, 90 Mo. App. 134; 5 C. J. 934; 2 R. C. L. 632, par. It must be understood that it is not within our......
-
Close v. Independent Gravel Co.
...to a valid assignment. 4 Cyc. 34. (3) Payments to assignee after notice to debtor of assignment are made at debtor's peril. Leahy v. Dugdale, 34 Mo. 99, 41 Mo. 517. (4) One takes an assignment acquires title, but must notify debtor to make his claim valid against a junior assignee. Houser v......