Morgan v. Lowe, Ebbets & Co. (1855) · DecisionDepot

Morgan v. Lowe, Ebbets & Co.

Name: California Superior Court Tentative Rulings
Creator: DecisionDepot
License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

California Supreme Court Jul 1, 1855Published

Before: Murray

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that an assignee of an invoice of goods who acts in good faith for valuable consideration and makes a timely demand and tender of payment is not required to provide notice of the assignment to the defendants to assert their rights.

Issues

Whether an assignee of an invoice of goods must provide notice of the assignment to the defendants to charge them with liability.
Whether the fifth section of the Practice Act of 1851 applies to the present case.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“no notice of such assignment was necessary to charge the defendants.”

“The fifth section of the Practice Act of 1851 docs not extend to a case like the present”

Synopsis

A. sold to B. a bill of goods to arrive on a certain vessel. B. paid part of the purchase money, and was to pay the balance as soon as the vessel arrived. B. assigned the contract to C., who within a reasonable time after the arrival of the vessel, tendered the balance of the money to A., and demanded the goods. Held, that G. was entitled to the goods, and no notice of the assignment was necessary to charge A.

It was no defense, that before A. had notice of the assignment, attachments in favor of the creditors of B. had been served upon him, and that he sold the goods and paid the proceeds to the attaching creditors after such notice, without the assent of G.

Murray, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court. Heydenfeldt, J. concurred.

The Court below properly instructed the Jury, that if the plaintiff was the assignee in good faith, aud for a valuable consideration, of the invoice of goods in controversy, and had demanded the same, within a reasonable time after the arrival of the vessel, and tendered the balance of the purchase money, that no notice of such assignment was necessary to charge the defendants.

In a case where the assignee had allowed the party to answer the attachment, and the money to be made by the process of the Court, the rule would be different. Such is not the fact in the present case. The defendants have undertaken to adjust this matter between themselves and the attaching creditors, to the absolute exclusion of the plaintiff’s rights.

The fifth section of the Practice Act of 1851 docs not extend to a case like the present, and the authorities cited from other States being-based on express statute, have no application.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Morgan v. Lowe, Ebbets & Co.

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief