Case ID: ohio-np-ns_7/html/0487-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Seward, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

VALIDITY OF ASSIGNMENT OF PART OF A CLAIM.
    Common Pleas Court of Licking County.
    R. L. Taneyhill v. The Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company.
    
    Decided, January Term, 1907.
    
      Assignment — Claim Includes Only Part of Indebtedness Due Assignor —■.Remedy of Assignee — Law and Equity.
    
    
      1. An assignment of a claim is not rendered invalid by reason of the fact that it includes only a part of the amount due from the debtor to the assignor.
    
      2. But the remedy of the assignee of such a claim is not in an action at law, but in an action in equity.
    
      R. L. Taneyhill, in person.
    
      Kibler & Montgomery, for defendant.
    
      
       Affirmed by the Circuit Court without report.
    
   Seward, J.

(orally).

This is a suit for $5 brought by R. L. Taneyhill against the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company, and while there is not much involved as to money value, there is a principle involved in the case, and that is the reason the parties are litigating this ease, I presume.

It is the question as to whether. Taneyhill can bring this action and prosecute it to' judgment — an action at law against the B. & O. R. R. Co. where only a part of the claim that was owing by the B. & O. Railroad to the assignor of Taneyhill was assigned. Taneyhill procured an assignment for $5 from a creditor of the B. & O. Railroad Company who was working for the company, when there was about $29 due the assignor. He assigned to Taneyhill $5. Taneyhill sent a registered letter to the company, notifying them of this assignment. There isn’t any question in the mind of the court but what the creditor of the B. & O. Railroad Company had a perfect right to make this assignment. The only question that confronts • the court is whether Mr. Taneyhill has a right to pursue his remedy at law. The court does not think he has. The court is cited to the 17th Ohio State, which holds that he has a right in equity to pursue the remedy. The 58th Ohio State holds the same way. The assignment of the claim is perfect, but the assignee has no right, as the court views it, to pursue his remedy at law, but is relegated to his remedy in equity,'if any there is; and there may be a judgment for the defendant.