¶1I concur, without any reference to the liens of attorneys. Terry stands before us as an assignee of a claim transferred to him, before the recovery of judgment in the first suit. In the absence of any proof of fraud or want of consideration between Carter and Terry, we are to treat the latter precisely like any other person who might have been the assignee; and surely in such case, under the same circumstances, we never would have allowed the set-off
17 How. Pr. 341
Roberts v. Carter
Decided May 15, 1859
New York Supreme Court · decided 1859-05-15
<p>Where the report of the referee was made, awarding a sum to the plaintiff, which, witli all his interest therein, was assigned to his attorney, in consideration of services rendered by the attorney, and for moneys advanced to carry on the suit, and the attorney, on being substituted as plaintiff, entered judgment in his own name against the defendant, for the amount reported due, with the costs of tho suit; and, subsequently, the defendant obtained judgment, onreport of referee, against the original plaintiff, and moved to set off his judgment against the former,</p> <p>Held, that such set-off could not be allowed. The attorney was not only the equitable assignee of the judgment to tho amount of his costs, but the actual assignee, for a good consideration, of the whole judgment, before the latter judgment was obtained.</p>
Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently January 1920
1 state decisions
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1859-05-15
View the full empirical analysis of this case →