J. HARPER, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR
v.
ANTHONY BUTLER, DEFENDANT IN ERROR
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.
An executor of a deceased person's estate who was probated and granted letters testamentary in Kentucky sought to assign a promissory note to the plaintiff, who then brought suit in federal court in Mississippi against the obligor. The Supreme Court held that an executor may validly assign a chose in action (a right to payment) in the state where probate occurred, and that an assignee may sue in his own name in the courts where the defendant resides, regardless of where the assignment took place. The Court reversed the lower court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr Chief Justice Marshall delivered the opinion of the Court.
This is an action of debt brought by the plaintiff in error, in the court of the United States for the district of Mississippi, as the assignee of Henry Clay, executor of James Morrison deceased. The defendant pleaded in abatement, that the will of James Morrison had not been proved or recorded in the state of Mississippi, nor had letters testamentary therein been granted to Henry Clay the executor. To this plea there was a replication, which set. out the probate of the will in the.state of Kentucky, the letters testamentary to the executor, and the assignment, in the state of Kentucky, of the note on which the action was brought to the plaintiff in error. To this replication, the defendant .demurred. The court gave judgment for the defendant, and the plaintiff has sued out this writ of erjror. The district, court proceeded on tne idea that the executor could not transfer a chose in action in Kentucky, because the obligor did hot reside in that state. This court supposes the law to be otherwise. The assignment in KenV tacky could not enable the assignee to sue in the courts of Mississippi, unless the law of the court. authorized an as-signee to sue in his own name. But since this is permitted in the courts of Mississippi, the plea in abatement cannot be sustained.
The judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded to the district court with directions to over-rule the demurrer.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ingersoll v. Coram, 211 U.S. 335 (U.S. 1908)
-
United States v. Guar. Tr. Co. of N.Y., 293 U.S. 340 (U.S. 1934)…he law of Yugoslavia. The Trust Company is not confronted with any procedural obstacle, like that presented in some jurisdictions where the transferee of a nonnegotiable cause of action seeks to sue thereon in his own name. Compare Harper v. Butler, 2 Pet. 239, 240. Nor is the Trust Company confronted by a divergent public policy of the forum, which forbids its courts from applying the Yugoslavian law. Compare Bond v. Hume, 243 U. S. 15; Oscanyan v. Arms Co., 103 U. S. 261, 277. Indeed, the courts of New…
-
Wilkins v. Ellett, 108 U.S. 256 (U.S. 1883)…ions in their own names against the debtors in another State, if the debts are negotiable promissory notes, or if the law of the State in which the action is brought permits the assignee of a chose in action to sue in his own name. Harper v. Butler, 2 Pet. 239; Shaw, C. J., in Rand v. Hubbard, 4 Met. 252, 258-260; Petersen v. Chemical Bank, 32 N. Y. 21. And on a note made to the intestate, payable to bearer, an administrator appointed in one State may sue in his own name in another State. Barrett v. Barre…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence