Kelley v. Hampton

J. L. KELLEY, Respondent, v. E. J. HAMPTON, Defendant and Appellant; L. J. FENTON, Defendant

Kelley v. Hampton, 133 P. 339 (Cal. Ct. App. 1913)

Court: California Court of Appeal · State Appellate Courts
Decided: May 10, 1913
Docket: No. Civ. No. 1239.
Judges: Hall
Citations: 133 P. 33922 Cal. App. 681913 Cal. App. LEXIS 56

Cited by 9

Headnotes

Assignment fob Collection—Action by Assignee—Findings.—In an action on a claim for goods sold and delivered, findings that the claim was assigned to the plaintiff, and that the assignment was for collection only, will support a judgment for the plaintiff. Id.—Effect of Assignment—Passing Title.-—An assignment for collection, without any consideration being paid by the assignee, vests the legal title in the assignee, which is sufficient to enable him to recover, though the assignor retains an equitable interest in the thing assigned.

Summary

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Hall

HALL, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment rendered against appellant, and comes to this court upon the judgment-roll alone.

The action is in the usual and ordinary form brought by the 'plaintiff upon an assigned claim for goods sold and delivered at an agreed price by plaintiff’s assignor to defendants.

The court found all the issues against appellant, but found in favor of his codefendant.

*69 Besides finding in strict accordance with the allegations of the complaint that the claim was assigned to plaintiff, the court further found that such assignment was for collection only. It is upon this finding that appellant bases an argument that the judgment in favor of plaintiff is not supported by the findings. But an assignment for collection, without any consideration being paid by the assignee, vests the legal title in the assignee, which is sufficient to enable him to recover, though the assignor retains an equitable interest in the thing assigned. This is of no concern to the debtor.

(Greig v. Riordan, 99 Cal. 316 , [ 33 Pac. 913 ].)

No other point is presented by the record or urged for a reversal; and the judgment is therefore affirmed.

Lennon, P. J., and Kerrigan, J., concurred.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 9 cases

View all citing references →

Relies on it most ⓘ

Rae v. Cameron114 P.2d 1060 (Mont. 1941)
Cohn v. Thompson16 P.2d 364 (Cal. Ct. App. 1932)
Elam v. Arzaga10 P.2d 805 (Cal. Ct. App. 1932)
Barlow v. Lande147 P. 231 (Cal. Ct. App. 1915)
Koepple v. Morrison257 P. 590 (Cal. Ct. App. 1927)
Ingle Manufacturing Co. v. Scales172 P. 169 (Cal. Ct. App. 1918)

Most recent

Rae v. Cameron114 P.2d 1060 (Mont. 1941)
Cohn v. Thompson16 P.2d 364 (Cal. Ct. App. 1932)
Cohn v. Thompson128 Cal. App. Supp. 783 (1932)
Elam v. Arzaga10 P.2d 805 (Cal. Ct. App. 1932)
Wright v. Shoenhair280 P. 174 (Cal. Ct. App. 1929)
Koepple v. Morrison257 P. 590 (Cal. Ct. App. 1927)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

Depth	Case	Cited by
	Greig v. Riordan, 33 P. 913 (Cal. 1893)	48

`/`	Focus the search box
`j` `k`	Next / previous result
`Enter`	Open the selected result
`x`	Add / remove the selected result from the download list
`n` `p`	Next / previous search term in a case
`c`	Copy the citation of the current case
`+` `−`	Larger / smaller reading text
`?`	Show this list