Upon the pleadings and proofs in this case, it appeared, that on the 27th of April, 1837, the defendant, John Atkinson, executed to the plaintiffs, as trustees of sundry creditors of the said John, and for securing the payment of debts due to these creditors, a deed, whereby he assigned to the said plaintiffs a large quantity of produce, several specific articles of personal property; and then, by general words, “all tire goods, wares and merchandize in his store; and all…
Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently October 1952
1 state decisions
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
¶1
having stated the case as above, proceeded as- follows: The plaintiffs and Horne are both trustees, and both represent creditors of the defendant, Atkinson. Neither of the assignments, as it regards the choses in action, transfers the legal interest — and in equity, a distinct appropriation and delivery over by the debtor of the choses in action, for the benefit of his creditor, is an assignment thereof. The Court, therefore, declares that the defendant, Horne, is entitled to retain so much of these choses in action, or of the proceeds thereof, as were actually delivered to John A. Tines before the execution of the assignment to the plaintiffs — but must account to them for the residue thereof.
¶2
As to the money, the plaintiffs have no claim thereto, unless it was the proceeds of the choses in action or other property embraced in their assignment.
¶3
There must, therefore, be an enquiry, t,o ascertain which of
*22
the cboses in action assigned to Horne were delivered to Tines, before the date of the assignment to the plaintiffs— and whether the money paid over to Horne, was in whole or in part the proceeds of property assigned to the plaintiffs.
