248 U.S. 24 - Lay v. Lay — 248 U.S. 24

How this case has been cited

4 federal appellate · 9 state decisions

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.

¶1ERROR TO THE, SUPREME COURT -.OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI.

¶2•As between the parties to- it, an assignment of a claim againct the Government for property taken during the Civil War, or of the right • td a fund appropriated by Congress to satisfy a judgment therefor, is not made void by Rev. Stats., § 3477. -

¶3118 Mississippi, 549, affirmed.

¶4The case is stated in the opinion. ..

¶5Mr. Wm. H. Watkins, for defendants imerror, submitted . the'motion.

¶6 *25Mr. John C. Bryson, for plaintiffs in error, in opposition to the motion.' Mr. Wm. I. McKay was also on the brief.

¶7Memorandum for the court by

¶8The Chief Justice. .

¶9The right to a fund resulting from the payment of an appropriation by Congress to satisfy a judgment for the value of property taken during the Civil War is the issue here involved. The contestants are the heirs at law of the original claimant and persons holding, under an assignment by her of all her right to the claim or fund. The court enforced the assignment. .

¶10Under the assumption that the claimant was prohibited by the law of the United States (§ 3477, Rev. Stats.) from making ah assignment, the heirs at law prosecute error to correct the federal error thus assumed to have been corn*mitted. But the assumption indulged in as to the effect of the law of the United States is without merit; McGowan v. Parish, 237 U. S. 285, 294, and cases cited. This renders it unnecessary to consider whether, if the heirs at law were entitled to the fund, they would be liable to pay the full sum of the attorney’s fee contracted for by the transferee and the duty to pay which the transferee and those in privity do not dispute.

¶11Judgment affirmed.