Case Name: Sarah Alger, Respondent, v. Samuel H. Scott et al., Appellants
Court: New York Commission of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1873-03
Citations: 54 N.Y. 14
Docket Number: 
Parties: Sarah Alger, Respondent, v. Samuel H. Scott et al., Appellants.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 54
Pages: 14–18

Head Matter:
Sarah Alger, Respondent, v. Samuel H. Scott et al., Appellants.
(Argued January 17, 1873,
decided March term, 1873.)
An order drawn, payable out of a specified fund1, is not an assignment %/t'o tanto of the fund, unless a consideration was paid therefor.
Plaintiff, -a married women, being the owner of certain premises rented to defendants, gave an order upon them to a creditor of her husband for $346,64, chargeable to her on account of rent. That amount-df rent had not then accrued ; defendants received and accepted the order, but' did not return it to the payee until after the commencement of this action for the rent. Held (Earl, C., dissenting), that the order being given without consideration did'not operate as an assignment of the rent to the amount thereof, and that plaintiff was entitled to recover the full amount of such rent.
Appeal from judgment of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the second judicial district, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff, entered upon a verdict.
This action was brought to recover $233.31 rent for certain premises in the city of Brooklyn, known as Mo. 13 Cheever Place, from the 1st day of August, 1866, to the fifteenth of Movember in the same year. As a defence, the defendants alleged that the plaintiff did, on the 16th of August, 1866, assign to one Glover, all the rents then accrued and unpaid, or that might immediately thereafter accrue from the premises, to the extent of $346.64. '
On the, trial the defendants proved that on the 16th day of August, 1866, Thomas Alger, the husband of the plaintiff, was indebted to- Glover in the sum of $700, and that on that day the plaintiff drew and delivered to Glover an order upon the defendants to pay Glover $346.69, directing them to charge the same to her account of rent of house Mo. 13 Cheever Place. This order was received by defendants and accepted, but was mislaid, and was not found and delivered to Glover until after the commencement of this action. Upon this state of facts, the judge at circuit charged the jury that the plaintiff’s order did not operate as an assignment of her claim for the rent to Glover, and that she was entitled to recover the amount for which the action was brought, and the interest, to which charge the defendants excepted. The jury rendered a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for the amount of the rent and interest.
Amasa J. Parker for the appellants.
The order on defendants, payable out of the rent, was an assignment pro tanto to the drawee. (Harris v. Clark, 3 Comst., 117; Morton v. Naylor, 1 Hill, 583.)
Jacob F. Miller for the respondent.
The order given to Glover was without consideration, and did not operate as an equitable assignment of the rent to him. (Burnet v. Bisco, 4 J. R. 235; Peoples. Howell, id., 296; Chaffee, v. Thomas, 7 Cow., 360 ; Pearson v. Pearson, 7 J. R., 26; Fink v. Cox, 18 id., 145 ; Harris v. Clark, 3 N. Y., 93; Craig v. Craig, 3 Barb. Ch., 76, 115; Clark v. Mauram, 3 Paige, 373; Bradley v. Root, 5 id., 632, 641; Carrigue, v. Sidebottom, 3 Metc. [Mass.], 297; Hall v. City of Buffalo, 1 Keyes, 193; Tyler v. Gould, 48 N. Y., 682; Biohardson v. Carpenter, 46 id., 660.

Opinion:
Gray, C.
The cases in this State, from Peyton v. Hallett (1 Caines' Cas., 363, 364, 379), down to Parker v. The. City of Syracuse (31 N. Y., 376, 379), in which an order, payable out of a specified fund, has been held not to be a bill of exchange requiring an acceptance, but an assignment of the fund to the payee to the amount specified in the order, were each of them cases where the drawer had received a consideration for the order, and, for that reason, the order was held to be an assignment of the fund drawn upon to the amount specified in it. This order was not supported by any consideration. " Its validity is tested by the same rule it would be if not drawn upon a specified' fund, and Glover, by reason of the defendants' refusal to accept it, had brought his action against the plaintiff to recover its amount. In such a case, the want of consideration would defeat, as it rightfully did in this case.
The judgment appealed from should be affirmed.