LAY ET AL.
v.
LAY ET AL.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Supreme Court affirmed a lower court's decision enforcing an assignment of a claim to a Civil War property compensation fund against the heirs of the original claimant. The Court held that federal law did not prohibit the original claimant from assigning her rights to the fund, rejecting the heirs' argument that such an assignment was invalid under federal statute.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Memorandum for the court by
The Chief Justice. .
The right to a fund resulting from the payment of an appropriation by Congress to satisfy a judgment for the value of property taken during the Civil War is the issue here involved. The contestants are the heirs at law of the original claimant and persons holding, under an assignment by her of all her right to the claim or fund. The court enforced the assignment. .
Under the assumption that the claimant was prohibited by the law of the United States (§ 3477, Rev. Stats.) from making ah assignment, the heirs at law prosecute error to correct the federal error thus assumed to have been corn*mitted. But the assumption indulged in as to the effect of the law of the United States is without merit; McGowan v. Parish, 237 U. S. 285, 294, and cases cited. This renders it unnecessary to consider whether, if the heirs at law were entitled to the fund, they would be liable to pay the full sum of the attorney’s fee contracted for by the transferee and the duty to pay which the transferee and those in privity do not dispute.
Judgment affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Martin v. Nat'l Sur. Co., 300 U.S. 588 (U.S. 1937)…e claims against the Government which were the subject of the assignment had never been allowed, much less collected, though the decision cannot be said to have been put on that ground. Another line of cases exhibit an opposing tendency. Lay v. Lay, 248 U. S. 24; Portuguese-American Bank v. Welles, 242 U. S. 7, 11, 12; McGowan v. Parish, supra; Freedman’s Saving & T. Co. v. Shepherd, 127 U. S. 494, 506; Hobbs v. McLean, supra; Bailey v. United States, 109 U. S. 432, 439; Goodman v. Niblack, 102 U. S. 556, 5…
-
United States v. Shannon, 186 F.2d 430 (4th Cir. 1951)…. Gillis, 95 U.S. 407, 24 L.Ed. 503. We do not pause to inquire with reference to all the cases whether the necessities of the judgment were as broad as the words of the opinion. * * * Another line of cases exhibit an opposing tendency. Lay v. Lay, 248 U.S. 24, 39 S.Ct. 13, 63 L.Ed. 103; Portuguese-American Bank v. Welles, 242 U.S. 7, 11, 12, 37 S.Ct. 3, 61 L.Ed. 116; McGowan v. Parish, supra [237 U.S. 285, 35 S.Ct. 543, 59 L.Ed. 955]; Freedman’s Saving & T. Co. v. Shepherd, 127 U.S. 494, 506, 8 S.Ct. 125…1 / 2
-
Cent. Ky. Natural Gas Co. v. City OF MT. Sterling (E.D. Ky. 1928)…ion or practice prescribed was unreasonable, did not infringe the rights of the complainants. The procedure permitted by the statute is consistent with the Fourteenth Amendment.” The case of Detroit & M. Ry. Co. v. Fletcher Paper Co., 248 U. S. 30, 39 S. Ct. 13, 63 L. Ed. 107, was a suit by a party to recover the excess charged over and above the rate fixed by the Railroad Commission. It was held he could not recover. The court said: “The only question properly before us is whether the statutes as constru…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- McGOWAN v. Parish, 237 U.S. 285 (U.S. 1915)