Case ID: johns_9/html/0143-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Curiam.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Carter against Jarvis.
    NEW YORK,
    May, 1812.
    te;,eat “ A. assigned to B. all his interest in c., which had shares”'™ 011
    It was held of trespass for carrying away couid^ot be maintained in A. by B. his should be in the name of B. only on to whom the property was assigned.
    IN error, on certiorari, from a justice’s court.
    
      Jarvis brought an action of trespass against Carter, for cutting and carrying away wheat sown by him upon the land of Carter, upon shares. The declaration alleged, that the plaintiff by Halmj Rodgers, his assignee, complained, &c. and it concluded to the damage of the said Halsey, assignee as aforesaid, of 25 dollars.
    At the trial, in September, 1809, Halsey appeared for Jarvis, and was objected to by the defendant. He produced and proved an assignment of the wheat from Jarvis to him, and was then admitted to appear in behalf of the plaintiff. On the trial, the assignment was read and relied upon, in behalf of the plaintiff; but it was objected, on the part of the defendant, that the assignment of the field of wheat growing, devested the plaintiff of all right to it, and that he, of course, could not maintain the action. , This objection was overruled by the justice, and a verdict was found for the plaintiff, on which judgment was rendered for 21 dollars and 67 cents damages, and 5 dollars costs,
    
      Vendell, for the plaintiff in error.
    
      Skinner, contra.
   Per Curiam.

This judgment must be reversed. The wheat growing on the ground, had been sold, and transferred by the plaintiff to Rodgers. The assignment is not set out at length, in the return; but it was treated as an instrument duly transferring all the interest of the plaintiff to Rodgers; and in the declaration the injury is alleged to be done to Rodgers, as assignee of the plaintiff. There was no necessity for bringing the suit in the name of Jarvis; and he having devested himself of all interest in the subject could not, for his own benefit, sustain the action.

Judgment reversed.