ROGERS V. LINDSEY, 54 U. S. 441 (1851)

Subscribe to Cases that cite 54 U. S. 441

U.S. Supreme Court

Rogers v. Lindsey, 54 U.S. 13 How. 441 441 (1851)

Rogers v. Lindsey

54 U.S. (13 How.) 441


The following paper, viz.:

"The President or Cashier of the Planters & Merchants Bank will please hold, subject to the order of Mr. J. G. Lindsey, all the debts referred to in the enclosed letter from Mr. McFarlin except the two drafts of McCollier Minge, upon the Messrs. Ellicotts, of Baltimore, which, when collected, please place to my credit"

imports an authority to Lindsey to control the settlement and collection of these several demands, but not necessarily a transfer of the title to or interest in them. The circumstances of the case favor this construction.

Lindsey had become personally responsible for a sum of money which these debts were intended in part to meet. As an honest transaction, it would answer all purposes if he had only a power to collect the debts.

Where Lindsey, under this power, assigned an interest in one of these judgments, and the bill charged that the assignee knew of the interest of the original creditor, which the assignee, in his answer, did not deny, he failed to bring himself within the rules which protect a purchaser for a valuable consideration without notice, and his claim must be set aside.

Lindsey's having assigned this judgment to a third person and then taken a reassignment of it does not vary the case. He stands then in his original position.

The bill was filed by Rogers against Lindsey, Atwood, and Bennett under the circumstances mentioned in the opinion of the Court, and which it is not necessary to repeat.

The cause was heard upon the bill, answers, exhibits, and proofs in the said district court on 17 April, 1850, and the court being of opinion that the plaintiff, Rogers, by his contract with the defendant, Lindsey, had assigned and transferred the judgment in the said court in favor of Rogers & Gray against John S. Bennett to said Lindsey, and that he, Lindsey, and the assignees under him were entitled to the money made thereon, ordered and decreed that the plaintiff's bill be dismissed with costs.

Rogers, the complainant, appealed to this Court.

Page 54 U. S. 442

ChanRobles Legal Resources:

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review :

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line :