Case Name: WIGHTMAN v. WIGHTMAN et al.
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1916-07-10
Citations: 160 N.Y.S. 75
Docket Number: 
Parties: WIGHTMAN v. WIGHTMAN et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 160
Pages: 75–77

Head Matter:
(173 App. Div. 701)
WIGHTMAN v. WIGHTMAN et al.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
July 10, 1916.)
Assigmients <@=5.131—Action—Paeadina.
Complaint alleging an assignment “of all and any right, title, and interest which I may now have or which may hereafter accrue to me” in a firm is sufiicient to show a cause of action for money loaned to the firm, if it should be shown by other evidence that the assignment was intended to transfer the debt arising out of the loan.
<g555l'or other eases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Assignments, Cent. Dig. §§ 220-226; Dec. Dig. @=>131.]
McLaughlin and Page, JJ., dissenting.
Appeal from Special Term, New York County.
Action by William F. Wightman against Richard Wightman, Jr., and another. From an order granting a motion to vacate an order for the examination of defendants before trial, plaintiff appeals. Order reversed, and motion denied.
Argued before CLARKE, P. J., and McLAUGHLIN, SCOTT, SMITH, and PAGE, JJ.
Theodore L. Bailey, of New York City, for appellant.
Herbert R. Limburg, of New York City, for respondents.

Opinion:
SCOTT, J.
The plaintiff sues upon two assigned claims against the defendants, who are or were members of a firm doing business as Wightman & Co. The sole ground upon which the motion was granted, and practically the sole ground upon which it is sought to be sustained, is that the complaint does not state any cause of action. A motion of this character does not furnish an appropriate occasion, speaking generally, to pass upon the sufficiency of a pleading. Sometimes, of course, a pleading will be found that is so obviously bad that no reasonable argument can be made in behalf of its sufficiency. In such a case it would be futile to grant an order for an examination to sustain it. Such cases, however, are rare, and in our opinion this is not one of them.
The assignments under which plaintiff sues were made by his mother, and each is of one-half "of all and any right, title, and interest which I may now have or which may hereafter accrue to me in the firm of Wightman & Co." It appears from the complaint that the only interest the assignors had in the said firm or its assets was that they had each loaned the firm considerable sums of money, which had not been paid and are still owing. The argument advanced by the respondents is that the phraseology of the assignment is not appropriate to the assignment of a claim for moneys loaned. The phraseology is certainly not apt to effect such a purpose, but we are not prepared to say, upon a mere inspection of the pleading, that it is not sufficient, if it should be made to appear by evidence aliunde the assignment itself that it was intended to transfer the indebtedness arising out of the loans, for the question as to what is covered by the assignment is to be determined by the intention of the parties to it.
The order appealed from must be reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and the motion denied. Settle order on notice.
' CLARKE, F. J., and SMITH, J., concur.