Case ID: add_1/html/0154-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "President.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

WASHINGTON COUNTY,
    December Term, 1793.
    James Buchanan v. Henry Taylor.
    THIS was an action on the case against a justice of a the peace, for wilfully and oppressively issuing an execution against the goods of the plaintiff, Buchanan, on a judgment given against him by the defendant, the justice, at the suit of Peter Peterson, for 3l. 18s. when the said judgment was satisfied, of which the defendant had notice.
    
      Peterson had put into the hands of Taylor sundry notes or claims for money due, and, among the rest one against Buchanan, on which this judgment was given. Peterson being in want of money, applied to one Fink, who lent him a certain sum, on Taylor becoming surety, which he did on condition, that he should be at liberty to apply the money due on the judgments before him, when it came into his hands, to the payment of the money borrowed from Fink. Peterson agreed to this. Buchanan was present, and told Fink, that, as to the money due by him, it was a just debt, and he need not fear its being paid.
    
    
      Fink demanding payment of the money lent, an execution was issued against Buchanan, who, having some other dealings with Peterson, went to him and procured from him a receipt for 3l. 18s. to be set up against the judgment confessed by him before Taylor, to which Buchanan said Taylor would agree. This receipt was shewn to Taylor, and he was desired to allow it in the execution. But he refused, because the money had been appropriated to satisfy the debt due to Fink, and that debt was not yet satisfied. The execution was proceeded in; and a horse of Buchanan's was sold for 5l. to a friend of his, who sold him back to Buchanan for 12l. On this the claim of damages was founded, and they were laid at 20l. The money made on the execution was paid over to Fink. Notice of this suit had been given to the justice, according to the act for rendering justices of the peace more safe in the execution of their office, &c.
    1 St L. 604.
    
    
      1 Burr. 561-4. 2 Burr. 719-22.
    
    Dallas 139. 1 T. Rep. 22. 619. 4 T Rep. 248. 340, 24, 83. 40. 3 T. Rep. 681. 2. Bla. Rep. 1147, 1269.
    
      Ross, argued for the defendant,
    that Peterson having assigned the money due on this judgment, to a certain purpose, had no further control over it; and that a justice was only answerable for corruption, oppression, partiality, or malice : none of which existed here ; for the conduct of the justice was fair and honest.
    
      Bradford, for the plaintiff.
    
      Peterson remained in the character of plaintiff before the justice, and had control over the judgment. The justice was judging in his own cause.
   President.

An assignment, though not in all the forms of law, vests the equitable interest in the assignee ; and the assignor will not, afterwards, be permitted to exercise any authority over the property assigned. It is indifferent whether the equitable assignment be in writing; by parole, or by the mere delivery of the muniments or evidences of right. If a debtor, who has paid a bond, stands by, and fees it assigned for a valuable consideration, and, concealing his payment, declares the debt just, he shall pay it again to the assignee. After the appropriation by Peterson of his debt on Buchanan, Peterson had no longer any authority over it, till the object of this appropriation was satisfied. Fink is the real assignee, for he had an interest in having the money, in the first instance from Buchanan, and not being turned round to Taylor. Fink's security was not to be lessened by any after act of Peterson's. Taylor was but an organ. His interest arose from the request of Peterson, and to favour him. Buchanan bad assented to this appropriation of the money. Nothing worse than indelicacy can be imputed to Taylor. His conduct is fair, and for an honest purpose: the fraud is in Buchanan.—At all events, the declaration is not for acting as a judge, in his own cause, but for wilfully and oppressively issuing an execution for a debt satisfied. The debt was not satisfied for it was due to Fink ; and there is no oppression, but an honest administration of justice.

The jury found for the defendant.