Case ID: scl_25/html/0218-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Curia, per Earle, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Shubar & Bunting v. B. H. Winding.
    A debtor 'inclosed notes, &c., to one of his creditors, by letter, with directions to satisfy first Ms own debt, then those of other creditors designated by name. This was a good assignment, as against other attaching creditors, for the benefit of the creditors named.
    Before Earle, J., at Edgefield, January Term, 1840.
    This was an issue on the return of Matthew Gray, a garnishee, in whose hands certain assets, had been attached as the effects of Winding, the absent debtor. Mr. Gray claimed property in them for himself and other creditors to whom they had been' assigned before the levy of the áttachment. He relied on the following letter from Winding, which accompanied the notes and accounts when they were placed in his hands.
    “The inclosed notes and accounts are all good; and out of them I wish you to pay yourself seventy-eight dollars, ($78.) Joseph Word about sixty dollars, (60.) The balance of Hr. Holland’s account to Giddens and Bushnell; and the balance to F. M. Cóoper. Gentlemen, it may take you a little time before you see these people, but I know it is good, and can do no better.”
    The Court held the assignment good to protect Gray, as a creditor in possession, but not to vest property in the other creditors; and ordered accordingly.
    Upon an appeal being taken, his Flonor, in the report of the case, expressed his conviction that his decision below had been erroneous.
   Curia, per Earle, J.

It is only necessary to repeat what I have said in my report of this case; that I am satisfied the decision in the Court below was erroneous. We are all of opinion, that the letter, transmitting the securities to Mr. Gray, was a valid assignment of them to him and the other creditors. There can be no doubt that such was the intention of the absent debtor, for the letter seems to he addressed to all of them, and was intended to give them a preference over others, as might be lawfully done; and in the only way in which it can well be done without suspicion of unfairness,; that is, payment of money, or actual delivery of assets. After the receipt of the letter, the act was irrevocable on his part, and vested property in Gray for himself and, in trust, for the others. Indeed, after he had accepted the trust, and had acted upon it, by collecting the money, he assumed an agency for the others, which I think would raise an assumpsit, and enable them to maintain an action against him for money had and received. The case of Dargan v. Richardson, decided this term, has held such a letter to be a valid assignment, to take effect from its date, and without delivery of the property. On the circuit, I considered Gray entitled to hold, as a creditor in possession, without reference to the effect of the letter, as an assignment. If good as an assignment to him, as it clearly was, according to Dargan v. Richardson, it was equally effectual to vest property in the other creditors, for whose benefit the securities were transmitted to him, as well as for his own.

The judgment of the Circuit Court, so far as regards the assets in the hands of Gray, .over and above his own demand, is reversed; and the order will be reformed so as to secure the claims of the other creditors.

Gantt, Eichardson, Evans and Butler, JJ., concurred. 
      
      
        Ante 197, which see. An.