New Orleans daily crescent., 1859-11-14
UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT.
Important Opinion Of Mr.. Justice Campbell

| Important Opinion OF Mr.. Justice Campbell
Saaf u Sa, @aesfsr, as,s r. Diiss's Hery oS
fsnsn aside decree Of ,t bs ese ss ssng NY m M ~
he IN disposed
se se, a,n and II peonisempaion q bankruptcy
hs % MI eas at as s ss'f date
ssR & for s s ssaae. 5 # G sssa ID se
Court s,s sSG s h dsssnant
@ 4 % lis
had become notorious and manifest some Of which occurred
a ssss 's The &c
% ass he aadaea and s M
affairs made general assignment OF It's property Of every de
snd The and
s 's Wss Confirmed to
granted to them sell and dispose of the property
Trustees had sold Hughes and others
he lie 's ad he s
plaintiff Was net entitled TO ma manan this bill for want Of
iii had never proved claim against the defendant and that
s I'D NOR m @ hs
The plaintiff replied to this plea the ale
the petition, and rea med the BILL The
iet r., Court upon the hearing adjourned the questions raised by
In the Commercial hank Manchester vs. Buckner 20 How
he certificate bankrupt could not be annuied BY any other
authority Than that of the District Court that granted and
be fh e9s Ct s
ae s n Ss s h rB 'p peraos s
contest The discharge Of bankrupt in The hst instance
and a js met %a nSss
nd wo lss 5 s es
mand under the bankruptcy all cases and CONTROVERSIES he
whether in Office removed all and
s9 IN e lie a @
ns distribution and settlement! of the estate Of The bankrupt
Court has therefore plenaTy Jurisdiction subject The
cause and oyer all parties who have an interest in that subject
subject that viii authorizs this petition
he Of an @
us s s hs ss II III a to
e Ct sr ssa IL s m 3 5 r hs
ihe Psaperioa easins: Sas
0 il s @ ed sell q ion
nung and enlaging the conferred in the deed s
Hughes eidevant cashier The institution By the agreement
suit asanst the desndeni and his partner ut his own ON
bill for four thousand dollars By and that of
IN
Ted dollars paid claims against the alm N Of Of II b.
Hamer Co. Of which the defendant surviving partner
;hs claims By rs testimony f Hughes had
shs MHssg ana M hs are
particularly described in bin filed BY this plaintiff the Cir
sn which submitted With the padns as an exhibit s
% hs sss fse g @ ts s o Third M il s6 @ s
Bank against the firm of Hamer Co. Hughes fora contu
The general principle Of Court of Equity bind any
ness % sa,s re- any nsr mans right & in his
latter clause Of the rule being an exception
dispatch Of business and avoid The delay arising from
e s II @ s a .nS
equitable interests in degree observed but the party whose
substantial enjoyment Of the matter in
dispute 1t is laid down the old books Of the Common law that
Nf 1h
granted over by to another Thus, if owe me
another may q attorney o another man to
sue for nd pn nd essre it. s I writing itself
rule has has scarcely any Greater force than 70 modify in de-
record those States in which The common law remains
unaered Courts Of Equity the fact that in
,ses.s exist in the form Of contracts to be performed out
mon on. law q did those Of The original olisee; - vs.
nson to the of chooses in action and The Courts Of
them Courts Of Equity treat The assignee as he of
The win rights Of ihe assignee as such
300 i decided that The pendency Of relative chose
y s q 9 a
that the statutes in regard camperiy and maintenance did
I hs pa Rfa
na s e s s9pe M yos soy his
all where the assignment Is and unconditional
extent and validity Of the assignment doubled Or denied
an and LIB here & no remaining liability Of the asgpor be effected
ssy Is e. Eq rsaa l's s,a i Ks
e ,e plaintiffs judement Kellogg Osborn a. and ihe suit
somplsinan merely for Their benefit fact
Court must be The real parties in interest
when ehsss in action M has been absolus assigned In Miller
Equity s fse sss s. be
the s os es ha ns
been change Of interest subsequent the
e pSaas.a oay
If there any further litigation in the case It cannot
s Of s original 5.s% s s
fIs5sd Traass
aaaaEs fs po m
s he * s naa SaS s a il
m Rbss De s whether h that
dfsa he s%ssf
s Ny III il 'n sdsss ss s
e f sa o % s the m s
do not regard the fact of Importance The assignments
the fIanehses # the corporation which could be done
creating new corporate body They their assgnees
hey evidences Of debt are not before @ ms
isslss sss ct 4 s
whatever is not duly assigned Hughes remains to
sgees and that any sui! in 10 these should be
III! IS ilol competent 10 bring This suit.
Ny opinion is that the defendant has proved that the plaintiff
6eo,e the Of this sui, had made absolute
ssnment of the debt described in the bill and that The bill
properly brought in the name OF the pain-and it will he
certified to the District Court
lSiGnedl ]. A. CAMPBELL.
Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United
United States Circuit Court FIN Circuit District of
CLERK's OFFICE:
file in this Office. ~
Witness my hand and seal of said Court at the
H. 81 city of New Orleans, this 18th day of November
A. ID. 1859. j. W. GURIEY, Clerk,
BY A. LAWSON, Deputy Clerk.