Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

142 Ala. 449

Snead v. Bell

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided November 15, 1904

Supreme Court of Alabama · decided 1904-11-15

Tried before the Hon. J. A. Bilbro. This action was brought by appellee, Robert N. Bell, ■as trustee for the benefit of Knight, Henry & Co.,, a domestic corporation against appellant John H. Snead. With the exception of those counts of the complaint which were withdrawn by the complainant, demurrers of defendant were sustained to all the counts except the 10th and 11th, which are as follows: “10.

Relies on Planters' & Merchants' Insurance v. Tunstall · Phillips v. Sellers

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1904-11-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently March 1935

4 state decisions

201904191019201930decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

TYSON, J.

¶1The 10th and 11th counts of the complaint, added by way of amendment, and upon which a recovery was had, shows that the recovery sought is by Bell, the plaintiff, as assignee of Knight, Henry & Company, a corporation, for the benefit of the creditors of that corporation, for the breach of a verbal agreement or contract for the sale of certain cotton by defendant to Knight, Henry & Company. One proposition raised by the demurrer to these counts is that Bell as assignee cannot sue in his own name on the contract alleged.

¶2At common law choses in action with the exception of negotiable instruments, were held not to be assignable, unless the debtor assented to the assignment and promised to pay the assignee, in which case the assignee might maintain an action against the debtor on the express promise to pay. — Goodwyn v. Lloyd, 8 Porter, 240, Brickell’s Digest, § 3 p. 124.

¶3And in the early period of the administration of the common law, equitable titles acquired by assignment of ncn-negotiable choses in action were not recognized by courts of law and the remedy of the assignee was in equity. However, later, courts of law began to recognize the equitable rights of the assignee and, at the present time, though the assignee be afforded ho aid by legislation, these courts will recognize the assignment and permit the assignee to enforce his rights by suing in the name of the assignor. — Black v. Everett, 5 S. & P. 60; P. & M. Ins. Co. v. Tunstall, 72 Ala. 148; 1 Brick. Dig. § § 56, 57, p. 127; 2 Brick. Dig. § 129, p. 338; 7 Ency. Pl. & Pr. pp. 732. 733.

¶4The contract or agreement, the breach of which is relied upon for a recovery, is not for the payment of money either express or implied, and, therefore, not governed by section 28 of the Code of 1896 which requires the action, where such is the case, to be prosecuted in the name of the party really interested. Nor is it within the provisions of section 876 of the Code which authorizes the endorsee to maintain an action upon all bonds, *456contracts and writings for the payment of money or other thing or the performance of any act or duty, assigned to him by endorsement.

¶5The demurrer to the counts should have been sustained. Phillips v. Sellers, 42 Ala. 658.

¶6Reversed and remanded.

McClellan, C. J., Simpson and Anderson, J.J., concurring.
/142/ala/449 · .json · Public domain