TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Moses v. Thorne

Moses v. Thorne, 6 Cal. 87 (1856)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
California Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
July 1, 1856
Judges
Heydenfeldt
Citations
6 Cal. 87
Syllabus
To enable the assignee of a judgment to sue on the appeal bond filed in the cause, he must have an assignment of the bond.
Summary
Appeal from the District Court of the Twelfth Judicial District. The plaintiff brought his action in September, 1854, on an appeal bond filed in the case of M. T. O’Connor v. John Stack et al., by the defendants. The plaintiff alleged and proved final judgment in that case against the defendants, and assignment of the judgment to him by M. • T. O’Connor, the judgment creditor; no assignment of the bond to plaintiff was alleged or proved, but the assignment of the judgment uses these words : “ secured by appeal bond of Isaac N. Thorne and Robert T. Ridley as securities.” The Court below allowed the plaintiff, . under the objection of defendants, to put in evidence the assignment of judgment, and gave judgment for plaintiff. Defendant moved for a new trial, which was overruled, and defendant appealed.

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

Opinion of the Court — Heydenfeldt

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

The opinion of the Court was delivered by Mr. Justice Heydenfeldt.

Mr. Chief Justice Murray concurred.

There was no right of action in the plaintiff in his own name. To entitle him to bring this suit, he should have had an assignment of the bond. The assignment of the judgment, while it may give him equitable rights to avail himself of the security afforded by the bond, cannot confer the right of bringing a common law action upon it.

The reason why a mortgage follows the transfer of a note which it secures, is because a foreclosure is only sought in equity.

The judgment is reversed.

How later courts describe this case

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

1874–1875: 11878–1879: 11898–1899: 11902–1903: 118742026peak 1874 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Heisen v. Smith71 P. 180 (Cal. 1902)
  2. Chilstrom v. Eppinger59 P. 696 (Cal. 1899)
  3. Rickards v. Ladd20 F. Cas. 752 (1879)
  4. Dray v. Mayer5 Or. 185 (1874)

Most recent

  1. Heisen v. Smith71 P. 180 (Cal. 1902)
  2. Chilstrom v. Eppinger59 P. 696 (Cal. 1899)
  3. Rickards v. Ladd20 F. Cas. 752 (1879)
  4. Dray v. Mayer5 Or. 185 (1874)

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 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list