Lewis v. Bush
| Decision Date | 23 February 1883 |
| Citation | 15 N.W. 113,30 Minn. 244 |
| Parties | William F. Lewis and others v. Charles S. Bush, Claimant |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Appeal by plaintiffs from an order of the district court for Ramsey county refusing a new trial after a trial by Brill, J without a jury.
Order affirmed.
Harvey Officer and Herbert B. Johnson, for appellants.
Rogers & Rogers and O'Brien & Wilson, for respondent.
The contest in this case is between the plaintiffs and the claimant as to which of them is entitled to the amount due from the garnishees on account of goods sold and delivered to them by the defendants. The facts are these:
The garnishees were a firm composed of C. A. Broadwater, residing in Montana, and A. H. Wilder, residing in Minnesota. They were engaged in merchandising in Montana, their purchases being made both in Montana and in St. Paul, Minnesota, in which latter place they had an office, where all their bills were paid. On and prior to June 22, 1881, they were indebted to the defendants Lawrence and Martin, (who resided and did business in Chicago, Illinois,) on account, in the sum of $ 3,432.11, for goods sold, which was payable in St Paul.
On the 22nd of June, 1881, at Chicago, the defendants, for a valuable consideration, sold and assigned this claim against Broadwater & Co. to the claimant, Bush, a resident of Louisiana. The plaintiffs, a firm residing and doing business in Canada, being creditors of defendants, brought this action, and attached the debt by serving a garnishee summons upon Broadwater & Co., June 29, 1881, after the assignment by defendants to Bush but before Bush had given any notice of the assignment to Broadwater & Co. After the service of this garnishee summons, and at the time of the disclosure of the garnishees, July 13, 1881, Bush appeared and claimed to be the owner of the debt thus sought to be reached by the garnishee proceedings, and was by direction of the court made a party thereto, pursuant to Gen. St. 1878, c. 66 § 174.
The law of this state is that an assignment of a chose in action is valid and complete in itself, upon the mutual assent of the assignor and assignee, without notice to the debtor. That notice is only necessary in order to charge the debtor with the duty of payment to the assignee, and protect the assignee from the danger of loss by reason of the debtor's paying to the assignor without notice of the assignment. But an arrest or attachment of the debt by a creditor of the assignor will not entitle such creditor to a priority of right, though no notice of the assignment be given to the debtor prior to the attachment, if the debtor receives such notice pendente lite, and in time to avail himself of it in discharge of the suit against him. MacDonald v. Kneeland, 5 Minn. 283, (352;) Williams v. Pomeroy, 27 Minn. 85, 6 N.W. 445. Hence, if the law of Minnesota governs this case, it is clear that the title of the claimant, Bush, has priority and must prevail. But the contention of the appellants is that the laws of Illinois, the domicile of the assignor and the place where the contract of assignment was executed, must control the rights of the parties. By the laws of that state, an assignment of a chose in action, although valid as between the parties without notice to the debtor, is not complete, so as to vest title absolutely in the assignee as against attaching creditors of the assignor, until notice or "intimation" of the assignment is given to the debtor.
It will not be necessary to consider generally the question as to how far the transfer of personal property is governed by the law of the domicile of the owner -- a subject upon which the law is in much confusion. There are certain important facts in this case, which, according to well-settled principles of law, are in our opinion decisive in favor of the claim of the assignee, Bush. It will be observed that this is not a question what law must govern as to the validity of the contract as between the parties. The question is entirely outside of that. It is not claimed that this assignment was not executed with all the formalities as to the mode of its execution between the parties required by the laws of Illinois. It is admitted to be valid and operative as a transfer of the debt from the assignor to the assignee, as between themselves. All that is claimed to be lacking is something required to be done by the assignee subsequent to the contract, so as to make his rights complete against third persons not parties to the contract. It will also be observed that the plaintiffs, the attaching creditors, claim no lien upon nor vested right of property in the debt under the laws of Illinois. Whatever claim they have upon it, if any, they have acquired by virtue of their garnishment under the laws of this state....
To continue reading
Request your trial