Cobb v. Doggett

action upon Judgment—Defense—Compromise with Assignees—Receipt of Local Attorney—Satisfaction of Judgment in Name of Plaintiff.—In an action by a judgment creditor to recover the unpaid balance of a judgment, in which the defendant pleaded as a defense, and the court found upon sufficient evidence, that the plaintiff had assigned the judgment to a partnership firm who had been his attorneys, and that a part of the judgment was paid to them in pursuance of an agreement of compromise with the assignees named, and in full settlement and satisfaction of the judgment, an objection that the settlement was not made directly with them, but with their local attorney, who was authorized to act for them, and whose acts were ratified by them, and who gave a receipt in full and a satisfaction of the judgment, as attorney for the plaintiff in the suit, is untenable. The use of the name of the nominal plaintiff in the suit was not improper.

Id.—Assignment of Judgment—Collateral Agreement as to Collection—Absence of Power of Compromise—Improper Exclusion of Evidence.—Where, besides the absolute assignment of the judgment, a contemporaneous written agreement was made between the assignor and assignees showing that the assignment was for collection, for a compensation of one half of the judgment, the assignor reserving the privilege of negotiating a compromise, the two instruments formed one contract between the parties; and though the effect of the assignment was to transfer the legal title and authorize the assignees to sue in their own name, yet under the contract they had no power to compromise the judgment to the extent of the interest reserved by the assignor. The court erred in excluding evidence of the collateral agreement, and should have admitted it and found accordingly, or directed an amendment.

Id.—Filing of Assignment without Collateral Agreement—Absence of Noíice—Defense not Pleaded—Leave to Amend upon Reversal.—Where it appears that only the assignment itself, which was absolute in form, was filed among the papers in the ease, and the collateral agreement was not filed, and there is no evidence tending to show that the defendant had notice of it, if the defense had been pleaded and sustained that the defendant dealt with the assignees, relying on the assignees alone, and without any notice of the collateral agreement, the exclusion of it would have become immaterial; but in the absence of such plea the judgment must be reversed for error in the ruling, with leave to the defendant to amend his answer, if so advised.