Court Opinion

ID: 9417021
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 20:00:47.391132+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:21:35.207969
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Miller,
with whom concurred-Mr. Justice Clifeord and Mr. Justice Bradley, dissenting.
I feel constrained to express my dissent to the opinion of the court just delivered. Wise & Greenbaum were the owners of *316the notes in this case. The judgment, which was undoubtedly a preference within the meaning of the Bankrupt Law, was taken in their- name, and for their use and benefit. ' The attorney who procured the bankrupt to confess judgment acted for them, and was compelled to use their name. If the notes had been sent by them directly to McLennan, the attorney, it is conceded that they would have been liable in this action. I am at a loss to see how their liability is changed by the fact that the. notes were sent to him through a commercial or collecting agency. This agency had no interest in the notes; was not liable to the attorney for his - fees, nor to the bankrupt for costs, if an unsuccessful suit had. been brought. The notes were not indorsed to this agency, nor could it in any manner have prevented Wise & Co. from controlling all the proceedings of the attorney for collecting the money.
The numerous cases cited from various courts of the relations between-banks acting as collectors of money, among themselves and with others, stand on a different basis.
In all such cases, the note or bill is either indorsed to a bank, or made payable to it. The bank sues, if necessary, in its own name. It passes the amount usually to the deposit account of the person from whom received originally, and the account is so passed as between corresponding banks.
It is from this course of dealing that the series of decisions referred to in the opinion have been made.
So, also, there are numerous cases in which the first agent of a note, or claim-owner,.may have acquired vested rights, as for fees or advances, or other considerations, which, as between themselves, authorized the first agent to control the debt.
But these cases differ very widely from the case before us, in which there is' no evidence that the collection agency had a particle of interest, or any right to control the proceedings for collection adversely to the owner of the notes.
The effect of the decision is, that a non-resident creditor, by sending his claim to a lawyer through some indirect agency, may secure all the advantages of priority and preference which the attorney can obtain of the debtor, well knowing his insolvency, without any responsibility under the Bankrupt Law.
Very few creditors, when this becomes well known, will fail to act on the politic suggestion.