BUERK V. IMHAEUSER
(Oircuit Uourt, S. D. New York. February 2, 1882.) 1.
EQUITY PRACTICE-INTERROGATORIES IN BILL-SUFFICIENCY OF ANSWER.
Under the rules in equity defendants are required to answer specifically only such interrogatories in the bill as by the note thereunder written they are reo quired to answer; otherwise they need answer only as specifically as the stating part of the bill charges.
In Equity. On exceptions to answer. William a. Ha.uff, for plaintiff. Arthur v. Briesen, for defendants. . WHEELER, D. J. This cause has now been heard on exceptions to the answer for insufficiency. The bill states the recovery of judgments by decree against the defendants for the payment of money; that execution cannot be satisfied for want of property to be found; that the defendants have or have had property, without specifying any in particular; and prays a discovery of their property in hand or held in trust for them. The interrogatories make more specific inquiries. The answer denies generally that the defendant answering has any property in his hands, or that any is held in trust for him, or that he has conveyed away any since the decree, at all, or before, in view of it, to defeat it. The rules in equity require defendants to answer only such interrogatories as they are specifically required by note to answer. This bill, accordingly, required the defendants to answer such interrogatories as by the note thereunder written they should be required to answer. There is no note thereunder written; therefore there were no interrogatories to be specifically answe.red. They were only required to answer the stating part of the bill. This the defendant answering has done, as specifically as he is by the bill charged. No ground is known for making a defendant give a particular account of all the property he has ever had, or deny specifically having had particular property, upon such general charge as to having had property before, which cannot be found now to satisfy judgments. At least, the particular property sought to be reached should be pointed out before anything more than a general answer should be compelled. Exceptions overruled
See Chicago, St. L. & N. O. R. Co. v. Macomb, 2 FED.
*Reported by S. Nelson White, Esq., of the New York bar.
March 4, 1882.1
(Oi"tuit Court, D. Rhode Island.
DECEIT-RIGHT OF ACTION NOT ASSIGNABLE.
The right of action for damages for a deceit is not assignable, and does not pass to the assignee of the bankrupt
As a rule, only such actions are assignahle as survive the death of a person, and would go to his executor or administrator. Where there is nothing, such as would survive the death of a person, there is nothing c:tpable of being transferred.
3. CASE STATED-RIGHT OF ACTION.
Where the assignee of the purchaser from the assignees of a banll:rupt of all the assets of the bankrupt remaining in their hands, brings an action for pecuniary damages arising from alleged false representations made to the bankrupt and to his assigns through which certain first-mortgage railway bonds deposited as security for certain notes of one of the defendants were given up, held, that whatever right of action the bankrupt may have had, this those t:n action did not pass to his assignees, and therefore no right of action passed to the plaintiff.
Charles M. Barnes and Flyde, Dickerson If; Howe, for plaintiff. James Tellinghrtst, for defendants.
COLT, D. J. This is an action for deceit. The defendants have demurred to the declaration. The main question raised by the demurrer is whether an action of deceit is assignable. The facts alleged, so far as it is found necessary to state them, are as follows:
One Nathan Matthews, of Boston, was adjudicated a bankrupt upon petition filed August 30, 1878, and assignees were duly appointed. On December 19, 1879, the assignees sold all the assets of the bankrupt remaining in their hands, and all their rights of action against the defendants, to Benjamin F. Brooks; and on January 22, 1880, Edwin Tufts, the plaintiff, became the purchaser from Brooks. Among the assets of the bankrupt were claims to a large amoullt upon promissory notes made, in 1875, by Edward Matthews, of New York, one of the defendants. In February, 1877, an agreement was entered into by which Nathan Matthews was to surrender a large part of these notes, and discontinue proceedings in bankruptcy already commenced against Edward Matthews, in New York, upon certain terms, Which, however, were never carried out by Edward Matthews, though the proceedings in bankruptcy against him were withdrawn. At the same time, as a part of this agreement, there were deposited, as security for the payment of Edward's notes, until he should fulfil the terms of the agreement, and make the payments called for under it, with William H. Williams, of New York, 250 of the first-mortgage bonds of the Carolina Central Railway, each of the par value of $1,000. It is