William Black, one of the Defendants, recovered a judgment at law against the complainant, against which judgment the complainant obtained an injunction, upon the ground that the debt was due to the Defendant and one David Black, trading in partnership as merchants under the name and Ann of William Black, & Co.; which company had failed, and both parties were insolvent, ha\ ing assigned all their debts and effects to their creditors, who had thereupon appointed David Black…
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1811-07-05
How this case has been cited
Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently November 1989
1 federal appellate · 2 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.
¶2
The Law relating to the competency of witnesses is too well settled at.this day to leave any doubt upon the first point submitted in this case. The general rule is laid down in the case of
Bent v.
Baker, “ that the witness is competent, if the verdict cannot be given in evidence- either for or against him in any other suit/’ &c. The finding of the Jury upon the issue submitted to them in the present case, cannot be used by the witness as evidence in any other suit. There may be exceptions to the general rule, but this is not one. The deposition of David Black was therefore properly received.
¶3
As to the second point, it is to be observed, that Mrs. Hornibleau has taken au assignment, of a
chose in
action,
a judgment,
a thing in its nature not assignable at Law. She therefore cannot stand in a better situation than her assignor. Upon an examination of the authorities upon this subject, it will be found, that the ground taken by Mrs. Hornibleau is tenable by those persons only, who, having the “
legal title”
in them, plead that they are purchasers for a valuable consideration and without notice. By this plea, they shew that they have as much equity on their side as their opponents, and that being the case, a Court of Equity will not interfere, and divest them of their legal title. All that Mrs. Hornibleau shews, is, that she purchased Black’s right to a chose in action
;
She then has
no
legal, but only an
equitable
right. But. Jordan- shews, that Black obtained the judgment against him unconscientiously, and this Court will say, in such case, that he shall not have the benefit of it, nor shall Mrs. Hornibleau, as she can stand -n a situation no better than her assignor. Let the injunction therefore be perpetuated.
