Case ID: nj-eq_31/html/0163-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

James S. Taylor v. Archibald K. Brown and others.
    F., a creditor of B., brought suit on his demand. T., another creditor of B., put his claim in the hands of an attorney for collection. The attorney proposed to F. to obtain an assignment from B., to secure both claims, and F. assented thereto. Subsequently B. made a general assignment for the benefit of all his creditors, which, however, was never delivered.—Held, that F. was not thereby estopped from prosecuting his suit.
    Bill for relief. On motion for injunction on bill and affidavits and depositions taken in another cause in this court, read by consent.
    
      Mr. S. B. Hansom, for the motion.
    
      Mr. Jacob Weart, contra.
    
   The Chancellor.

The defendant, William M. Eorce, being a creditor of Archibald 3L Brown, brought suit against him to recover his debt. The complainant, also a creditor of Mr. Brown, placed his claim in the hands of an attorney for collection. The latter proposed to obtain, if practicable, an assignment from the debtor of an interest he had in the estate of his deceased father-in-law, to secure the payment of the debts of his client and Mr. Force. Mr. Force was willing to accept that arrangement if it could be effected, provided it included the payment of his attorney’s fees, and he appears to have said so. Though Mr. Brown executed an assignment of the interest, it was not for the benefit of Taylor and Force alone, but included in its provisions the claims of other creditors, also, to be paid ratably with theirs. He never delivered the assignment. Mr. Force proceeded to judgment with his suit and took supplementary proceedings thereon at law, and filed a bill in this court to obtain satisfaction of his debt out of the before-mentioned interest. The complainant seeks to restrain him in those proceedings, on the ground that, although Mr. Brown did not deliver the assignment, he executed it and promised to deliver it, and, therefore, it should be regarded in equity as having been delivered at the time when he ought, according to his promise, to have delivered it, which was before Mr. Force obtained judgment. But Mr. Force does not appear to have done or said anything which makes it inequitable for him to proceed to collect his debt by the means which he has taken. He does not appear to have gained his advantage by inequitable conduct or methods, but, on the other hand, seems to have acted fairly in all respects.

The motion will be denied, with costs.