Hooper v. Benson

Decided March 15, 1793

Supreme Court of Connecticut · decided 1793-03-15

AgttoN on note, dated 25th of November 1789 for £30, payable in net stock, corn, etc. on the 20th December A. D. 1790 with interest. Plea — Pull payment. Issue to the jury- On the 27th of April A. D. 1790 Hooper for a valuable consideration, indorsed this note to a Mr. Williams of Roxbury, of which the defendant had notice; Dr. Dyer and one Compstock, creditors of Hooper, instituted suits against him for their debts and described him to be an; absconding debtor, and on the 8th of July A. D. 1790, copies were left with the defendant in service as debtor to said Hooper, and judgments were afterwards recovered .in said suits against said Hooper, and a scire facias was brought on each, against tbe defendant; tbe defendant.paid to said Williams on tbe ‘2d of April 1791 £14 12s. wbicb was indorsed on tbe note, be notified said Williams of tbe suits of Dyer and Oompstock ágainst bim and called on bim to defend against tbem; Williams took very little pains in tbe suits, referred bim to some witnesses whose depositions be took and. made tbe best defense be could for Williams; but tbey recovered against bim. Dr*. Dyer recovered judgment and execution for £16 Is. 9d., and Oompstock for £17 19s., wbicb were levied and collected of tbe defendant, wbicb more than paid said note. Tbe jury found tbat tbe defendant bad made full payment of tbe note on wbicb, etc. wbicb was accepted by tbe court; there being only three judges.

Decided 1793-03-15

Chauncy, J.,

¶1dissented, upon the ground tbat by tbe assignment of tbe note, tbe property was vested in said Williams, and tbat a recovery ought to be bad for bis benefit, and tbat tbe recovery by tbe creditors against tbe defendant was wrong.

¶2Adams and Hoot accepted tbe verdict, upon the' principle tbat admitting the property'to be vested in Williams, by tbe assignment, yet as the defendant was unable to defend against tbe suits of tbe creditors, by all tbe means said Williams furnished, and being compelled to pay tbem, it would be unreasonable to put bim to a suit to recover tbe money back. If tbe money was Williams’s and Dyer and Oompstock bad no right in equity to bold it, let bim be at tbe expense of recovering it.