Van Doren v. Relfe
| Decision Date | 31 March 1855 |
| Citation | 20 Mo. 455 |
| Parties | VAN DOREN, Respondent, v. RELFE, Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
1 Under the new practice, the assignee of a claim for damages upon a broken covenant of seizin must sue in his own name. He cannot sue in the name of his assignor, the covenantee; and it makes no difference that, in the instrument of assignment, the assignor authorizes suit to be brought in his name.
Appeal from Washington Circuit Court.
This was an action brought in January, 1852, to recover damages for the breach of a covenant of seizin contained in a deed from Relfe to Vandoren for certain land, dated August 13th, 1836.
The land was within what is known as the Iron Mountain tract, confirmed to Joseph Pratte by act of congress of July 4, 1836, and Relfe had no title at the time of his conveyance to Vandoren. On the 8th of May, 1838, Vandoren conveyed all his property of every description, including the land acquired of Relfe, and all his rights of action, to trustees for the benefit of creditors. In this conveyance, the trustees were by Vandoren appointed his “true and lawful attorneys irrevocable, in his name or otherwise, to ask, demand and recover and receive of and from all and every person or persons all goods, chattels, debts and demands, due, owing or belonging unto him, and in default of delivery or payment, to sue for the same.” In 1842, Vandoren, after regular proceedings in the United States District Court in Ohio, received his discharge under the law of the United States for the relief of bankrupts, by virtue of which, all his property and rights of action were vested in assignees in bankruptcy.
The Circuit Court held that the beneficial interest in the claim for damages was in the trustees, unaffected by the subsequent proceedings in bankruptcy, and that by the terms of the deed to them, they could maintain a suit in the name of Vandoren. The defendant appealed.
J. W. Noell, for appellant, among other points, insisted that the suit was not brought in the name of the proper party.M. Frissell, for respondent, insisted that the suit was properly brought. The covenant of seizin does not run with the land. The assignee of Vandoren could not sue, for the reason that the breach was consummated before the assignment. The creditors of Vandoren are the “real parties interested.” But it would be very inconvenient, if not impracticable, to bring the suit in their names. A case like this is provided for in the last clause of section four of article thirty...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Keeley v. Indemnity Co. of America
... ... clearly shows that plaintiff was not the real party in ... interest. R. S. 1919, sec. 1155; Van Doren v. Relfe, ... 20 Mo. 455; Jeffers v. Oliver, 5 Mo. 433; ... Crescent Furniture Co. v. Raddatz, 28 Mo.App. 210; ... American Forest Co. v. Hall, ... ...
-
Coleman v. Lucksinger
...arising from the breach of the covenants in a deed may be assigned, and when assigned, the assignee, and he alone, can sue. [Van Doren v. Relfe, 20 Mo. 455.] The only remaining question is, the deed to plaintiff will operate as an assignment of the prior covenants so as to protect the assig......
-
Keeley v. Indemnity Co. of America
...evidence for the reason that the evidence clearly shows that plaintiff was not the real party in interest. R.S. 1919, sec. 1155; Van Doren v. Relfe, 20 Mo. 455; Jeffers v. Oliver, 5 Mo. 433; Crescent Furniture Co. v. Raddatz, 28 Mo. App. 210; American Forest Co. v. Hall, 279 Mo. 643; Brady ......
-
Crosby v. Evans
...broken covenant of warranty passes to the grantee or assignee, who must sue in his own name. The grantor or assignee cannot sue. Van Dorn v. Rolfe, 20 Mo. 455; Dickson v. Desire, 23 Mo. 166; Chambers Smith, 23 Mo. 174; Vancourt v. More, 26 Mo. 98; Jones v. Whitsett, 79 Mo. 191; Hunt v. Mars......