Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

64 N.H. 39

5 A 768

Brown v. Mansur

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

Decided June 5, 1886

Supreme Court of New Hampshire · decided 1886-06-05

Bill jn Equity, by the administrator, widow, and two minor children of Charles C. Green, deceased, to recover possession of a certificate of insurance upon the life of said Green. Facts found by the court. The defendant is the mother of an illegitimate child, of which Green was the father.

Relies on Thompson v. Emery · Foss v. Lowell Five Cents Savings Bank · Parker v. Way

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1886-06-05

How this case has been cited

Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently September 2003

1 district · 11 state decisions

401886189019001910192019301940195019601970198019902000decided

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.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Bingham, J.

¶1 The certificate is a chose in action assignable by parol. The fact that it provides that it may be assigned with the consent of the association and an action maintained thereon by the assignee, is simply an adoption of the common law. Boyd v. Webster, 58 N. H. 336 ; 1 Bouv. Law Dict. 265, s. 2; Foss v. Bank, 111 Mass. 285, 287. At common law, also, the assignee becomes the equitable owner, and without the consent of the debtor to the assignment of a chose in action may maintain a suit in the name of the assignor or his legal representative, and, after notice to him of the assignment, the equitable interest of the assignee will be protected in courts of law against all interference of the original parties. Duncklee v. Company, 23 N. H. 245, 250; Thompson v. Emery, 27 N. H. 269, 272; Cameron v. Little, 13 N. H. 23, 25 ; Gordon v. Drury, 20 N. H. 353.

¶2 The assignment need not be in writing, or in any particular form of words, if a consideration is proved, and the meaning of the parties appears. The assignment was not void on account of its immorality. It was not immoral for the mother to provide for the maintenance of the child, whatever may have been her previous conduct, and its support was a good consideration for the assignment of the certificate. Parker v. Way, 15 N. H. 45, 51; Hoit v. Cooper, 41 N. H. 111; Haven v. Hobbs, 1 Vt. 238; Holcomb v. Stimpson, 8 Vt. 141; Jennings v. Brown, 9 M. & W. 495; Hicks v. Gregory, 8 Man. Gr. & S. 378; Smith v. Roche, 6 C. B. N. S. 223. If Green had not voluntarily paid the expense of the child and provided for its future support, he might have been compelled to do so. G. L., c. 84, ss. 1, 4, 6, 7.

¶3*41 The question in this case is between the legal representatives of Charles O. Green and the defendant. The association having paid the money without objection to the equitable right of the defendant, the representatives of Green cannot insist upon any objection which the association has waived. The defendant is entitled to the money, and the clerk may pay it to her under the agreement.

¶4 Bill dismissed.

Clark, J., did not sit: the others concurred.
/64/nh/39 · .json · Public domain