Case Name: Charles H. Winfield, Respondent, v. Samuel B. Potter, Appellant
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1868-01
Citations: 38 N.Y. 67
Docket Number: 
Parties: Charles H. Winfield, Respondent, v. Samuel B. Potter, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 38
Pages: 67–70

Head Matter:
Charles H. Winfield, Respondent, v. Samuel B. Potter, Appellant.
The fact, that thé plaintiff, as assignee of the claim upon which action is brought, is an attorney-at-law, practicing in New Jersey, is no defense to the action.
Where the questions of fact were all fairly and precisely left to the jury, and the exceptions taken are clearly untenable, the judgment should be affirmed with costs, and ten per cent damages.
Where pendency of a prior suit on the same cause of action is alleged as a defense, and proves unavailing, it seems, that relief vcannot be obtained on appeal to this court, but must be sought by motion in the Supreme "Court, which has full power over the judgment.
E. W. Chester, for the respondent.
Ira D. Warren, for the appellant.

Opinion:
Clerke, J.
This action is brought on an agreement, by which the defendant promised to pay H. B. Hart $1,125 whenever he should receive certificates under a contract between Frederick F. Betts & Co. and the government of the Hnited States, for the making and delivery of five thousand sets of military equipments, provided he should receive certificates to that amount. The defendant became the assignee of this contract with the government of the Hnited States, by sale from Betts & Co. of all their assets, including the equipments, for the sum of $8,000, which they had previously owed him. The consideration of this agreement was, that Hart should aid Potter in procuring the inspection and acceptance by the government of these military equipments; it also appeared that Frederick F. Betts & Co. owed this sum of $1,125 to Hart, at the'time of the sale of their assets to the defendant. Hart assigned the agreement with the deiendant to the plaintiff, in this action.
The answer denies the assignment by Hart to the plaintiff; sets up that the plaintiff is an attorney-at-law, with the intent and for the purpose of bringing a suit thereon, contrary to the statute; that Hart, at the same time when defendant signed the agreement above mentioned, signed an agreement, in which, he promises to aid Potter in getting the goods examined by the government without charge. The answer also sets up fraudulent representations on the part of Hart to induce the defendant to sign the agreement; that Hart never aided him in procuring the certificates, and, in fact, that he never received from the government any of the certificates mentioned in the agreement. For a sixth defense he sets up the pendency of another action.
The defendant's counsel moved to dismiss the complaint, on the ground that another action for the same cause was then pending. There was nothing to show that the other action was for the same cause, except that it was for a similar amount; but it was between parties other than the parties to this suit.
The judge, in his charge to the jury, instructed them that the fact set up that the plaintiff in this action is an attorney-at-law, practicing in Hew Jersey, is no defense. There was no evidence, besides, showing that the plaintiff purchased the agreement with the intent and for the purpose of bringing a suit thereon. All the questions of fact were fairly and precisely left to the jury.
The exceptions are clearly untenable.
The judgment should be affirmed, with costs and ten per cent damages.
Mason, J.
The only point presented by the appellant, in this case, is the one raised upon the trial on his motion to dismiss the complaint, upon the ground that he had sustained the sixth defense set up in his answer, which was in short the dependency of a prior suit for the same cause of action in the name of John B. Ireland, receiver, which suit it was claimed was prosecuted for the benefit of the plaintiff in this suit. The court properly overruled this motion. There is no evidence in the case to show that the suit by the receiver, Ireland, was commenced first, and, besides, the defendant utterly failed to show that the suit brought by Ireland was for the same cause of action embraced in the complaints in -the present suit. The present suit is an action at law to recover of the defendant $1,125 upon an express contract hv the defendant, to pay the same to H. B. Hart, who assigned the same to F. B. Betts, and who assigned the same to the plaintiff in this action in which suit the plaintiff declares upon the contract? setting forth the assignments from Hart to Betts, and from Betts to him. The suit' by Ireland, receiver, is a creditor's suit strictly brought by Ireland, as receiver, to enforce the collection of a judgment in this court in favor of the present plaintiff against Betts & Thomas. The complaint sets forth the recovery of the judgment against Betts & Thomas, the issuing of an execution thereon to the sheriff, and the return of milla bona by the sheriff. The defendant in this suit, and both Betts & Thomas, were made defendants; and the object of the suit was to set aside a bill of sale of certain property made by Thomas, of the firm property, to the defendant Potter, as fraudulent as against the creditors of Betts & Thompson, or else to reform such bill of sale so as to make Potter liable for the debts of Betts & Thompson,' and that Potter be decreed to insert a covenant in that bill of sale obligating himself to pay the debts of the said Betts & Thompson, etc. The tWo suits are not near enough alike to claim relationship, and I am satisfied that the keenest judicial perception will never be able to discover their identity. The suit in the action at law by the plaintiff against Betts & Thompson was, I am satisfied, upon the same note which was the foundation of the action in the present suit, or rather was the same note which the plaintiff in the present suit alleged that Potter agreed to pay. But the creditor's suit against the defendants and Betts & Thompson was to reach the assets of Betts & Thompson in the hands of the defendant or to "obtain the judgment of this court that he be decreed to pay the plaintiff's judgment, etc. It is possible, that, in such creditor's suit, the receiver may have reached this demand among others, and it is also possible that the plaintiff may have collected his debt in that- suit, but there is nothing here to show it, except the affidavit made by Mr. Chester to obtain relief against the judgment.
This court, as an" appellate tribunal, cannot grant to the defendant the relief which he asks. He must make his motion in the Supreme Court, which court has full power over the judgment, and will not, I presume, "allow the same • demand to be collected twice.
The appellant's counsel has informed us in his brief,- that he deems it safe to rest his case on this one point without going into the case or arguing any other exception. And I will only say, in regard to the other exceptions, that I have carefully examined the various rulings of the court below, upon the questions of evidence, and find no errors committed, calling • for the reversal of the judgment on. that ground. The charge of the judge to, the jury submitted fairly every proposition in the case, and none of the exceptions thereto were well taken, and I advise the affirmance of the judgment.
Judgment affirmed.