Gilman v. American Producers' Controlling Co.

Assignment. Practice, Civil, Parties. Jurisdiction. The fact that an. assignment contains a permission to bring suit in the name of the assignor does not abridge the right of the assignee to sue in his own name given by St. 1897, c. 402. A plaintiff may join a number of counts, each for a breach by the defendant of a contract with a different person of whom the plaintiff is the assignee, and by adding the claims together give the court jurisdiction of his case although each claim alone is below the required limit.

Two actions of contract, one by John M. Gilman and the other by Clarence E. Peters, each suing in behalf of himself and as assignee of others for breaches by the defendant of many separate contracts in writing, each with one person to employ him to work in the State of Utah at a stated sum per month, each claim being contained in a separate count. Writs in the Supreme Judicial Court, dated September 11, 1900. The eases were reserved by Lathrop, J., for the determination of the full court. By the report, it appeared, that the plaintiff in each case took assignments from those for whom he sought to recover, each authorizing him to sue in the name of the assignor, that neither the amount claimed to be due under the contract with the plaintiff in each action nor that claimed to be due any one assignor was sufficient to give this court jurisdiction of the actions, though the aggregate of the sums was sufficient. The assignments were all alike and each contained the expression “ with power to collect the same in my name and as my attorney, hereunto duly authorized to his own use.” The defendant contended that under this form of assignment the plaintiffs could not maintain the actions in their own names. If the actions could be maintained, the cases were to be sent to an assessor to assess the damages; otherwise the actions were to be dismissed.