Case Name: Neilson for the use of Hord vs. Gilliam
Court: Tennessee Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Tennessee
Decision Date: 1835-03
Citations: 7 Yer. 474
Docket Number: 
Parties: Neilson for the use of Hord vs. Gilliam.
Judges: 
Reporter: Tennessee Reports
Volume: 15
Pages: 474–475

Head Matter:
Neilson for the use of Hord vs. Gilliam.
H. hired to G. a negro, and during the time, the negro fell sick, when N. was called in to attend him as a physician, H. paid to N. the bill which was charged to G.: Held, that H. might sue G. for the amount of the bill in the name of N. for his use.
Gilliam hired from Hord, his negro for one year; the negro fell sick and Dr. Neilson was called upon, and as a physician, gave his attention to the case. Hord, as an accommodation to Neilson, paid the amount of the bill; Gilliam refusing to pay Hord the money he had advanced, Neilson brought this suit by warrant, and judgment was rendered for defendant on a trial in the circuit court, where the cause had been taken by appeal. The court charged, “that in this kind of demand, suit could not be maintained in the name of Neilson for Hord.’s use, it being an implied assumpsit, and not assignable or saleable at common law, nor is it made so by any statute, and would be champerty and maintenance.” The jury found for the defendant. The opinion of the court is exepted to, and the cause is brought into this court by writ of error.
Rowan, for plaintiff in error.
Hoover, for defendant in error.

Opinion:
Peck J.
delivered the opinion of the court.
It is not questioned but that Gilliam was bound to pay for medical services rendered to the slave, being the property of Gilliam for one year under the hire (4 Haywood, 11). The money advanced by Hord was so much paid, laid out, and expended, for the use of Gilliam.
Neilson is the plaintiff in fact, and because Hord had advanced him so much money, he is named in the warrant as the person for whose benefit or use the suit is brought, or in other words, he is designated as the person to lake the money when recovered. It is a mistake to , TT . i it* .m • • . suppose that Hord is the real plaintiff; it is not against law or morality to associate the name of Hord, as is done in this case, with that of the plaintiff.
To make the whole merits of the claim of Neilson to depend upon the naming of Hord as the beneficiary in the judgment when recovered, was an error in the judge; for which, the judgment must be reversed.
Judgment reversed.