Case Name: William S. Skinner versus Nehemiah Somes, Jun
Court: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Jurisdiction: Massachusetts
Decision Date: 1817-03
Citations: 13 Tyng 107
Docket Number: 
Parties: William S. Skinner versus Nehemiah Somes, Jun.
Judges: 
Reporter: Massachusetts Reports
Volume: 14
Pages: 95–96

Head Matter:
William S. Skinner versus Nehemiah Somes, Jun.
Debt does not lie for the assignee of a bond, in his own name, against the obligor.
The plaintiff declared in debt upon a bond made by the defendant to one John Somes, his heirs, executors, administrators, or assigns, and upon an assignment thereof by the said John to the plaintiff; and avers notice to the defendant, and a demand and refusal.
The defendant demurs generally to the declaration, and the plaintiff joins in demurrer.
Townsend, for the plaintiff.
Courts ot law have become more liberal in later times in supporting and protecting the rights ol assignees of choses in action. In Tuttle vs. Beiee, the assignee of a bond was allowed to set it off in an action of assumpsit by the obligor against him. In Mowry vs. Todd, this Court sustained an action on a contract not in its nature negotiable, in the name of the party to whom it had been delivered over without the name of the assignor, the party bound having recognized the transaction, and promised to pay the contents to the holder. The word assigns in the bond amounts to a consent, on the * part of the obligor, that the bond should be transferred, and an engagement to pay to the assignee. Many cases in the books, prior to the statute of 4 Anne, c. 9, show actions maintained by assignees of dioses in adion.
Reed vs. Ingraham. was an action by the assignee of a stock contract, to recover the amount of the difference due on the con tract, and was maintained by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, notwithstanding it is said by the Court, that, on general principles of law, such contracts cannot be regarded as negotiable; yet modus et conventio vincunt leges. And on a motion afterwards for a new trial, the judges cited the case of Fenner vs. Mears, and the argument of Butter, J., in Master vs. Miller, and adhered to the opinion before given. - It is said, in Bac. Air., Debt, C, that there is no case where a thing may be transferred or assigned over, but the remedy shall go along with it. If the word assigns in this bond are not tantamount to order, it can have no force or meaning attached to it.
Sohier for the defendant.
8 Johns. 152.
12 Mass. Rep. 281. See, also, 2 W. Black 1269, Fenner vs. Mears.
3 Crunch, 428, 439.
1 Salk. 125. 132.—3 Salk. 67. — 12 Mod. 380.
3 Dallas, 505.
4 D. & E. 341.
See 8 D. § E. 595, Innes vs. Dunlop.

Opinion:
By the Court.
This is the first attempt to maintain an action of debt by the assignee of a bond in his own name. The word assigns has been for centuries inserted in bonds and obligations; but no one has conceived that it gave to them a negotiable property, so as to transfer the right of action upon them to the assignee. In Fenner vs. Mears, the action was assumpsit upon the promise of the obligor to pay to the assignee; and the assignment of a chose in action was always a good consideration for a promise.
We have gone as far in favor of assignments as the authorities or the reason of them would justify us. But to support the present action would be to disregard settled and established rules, founded on sound principles of law, and the highest reason,
Declaration adjudged, bad.
[Day vs. Whitney, 1 Pick. 503. — Dunn vs. Snell & Al. 15 M.481.— Ed.]