Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

217 N.C. 377

8 S.E.2d 199

Rickman v. . Holshouser

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided April 10, 1940

Supreme Court of North Carolina · decided 1940-04-10

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently December 2010

2 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1940-04-10

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Devin, J.

¶1 The right of the assignee of a chose in action arising out of contract to sue therefor in his own name has been declared by statute (C. S., 446), and has been upheld in numerous decisions of this Court. Fertilizer Works v. Newbern, 210 N. C., 9, 185 S. E., 471; Horne-Wilson, Inc., v. Wiggins Bros., Inc., 203 N. C., 85, 164 S. E., 365; Trust Co. v. Williams, 201 N. C., 464, 160 S. E., 484; Craig v. Stewart, 163 N. C., 531, 79 S. E., 100; Vaughan v. Davenport, 159 N. C., 369, 74 S. E., 967; Harris v. Burwell, 65 N. C., 584.

¶2 The contention of defendants that the assignment of wages by an employee is invalid unless accepted in writing by the employer, as provided by ch. 410, Public Laws 1935, cannot avail, since that act applies only to assignments of wages to be earned in the future. Here it is agreed that the amount sued for is based upon the assignment of wages already earned and due by the defendants to the assignor. The fact that another instrument executed by the employee refers to wages to become due is immaterial.

¶3 The judgment below is

¶4 Affirmed.

/217/nc/377 · .json · Public domain