US LAWS, STATUTES and CODES : Chan Robles Virtual Law Library USA Supreme Court Decisions | Resolutions : Chan Robles Virtual Law Library

ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™ |™   
Main Index Repository of Laws, Statutes and Codes Latest Philippine Supreme Court Decisions Chan Robles Virtual Law Library Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Legal Resources United States Supreme Court Jurisprudence ChanRobles LawTube - Social Network

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : DebtKollect Company, Inc. - Debt Collection Firm Intellectual Property Division - Chan Robles Law Firm

Philippine Supreme Court DecisionsChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

google search for chanrobles.comSearch for

STOCKTON V. FORD, 59 U. S. 418 (1855)

Subscribe to Cases that cite 59 U. S. 418 RSS feed for this section

U.S. Supreme Court

Stockton v. Ford, 59 U.S. 418 (1855)

Stockton v. Ford

59 U.S. 418


In the case of Stockton v. Ford, reported in 11 How. 232, this Court decided the following propositions, namely:

"Where there was a judgment which had been recorded under the laws of Louisiana and thus made equivalent to a mortgage upon the property of the debtor, and the plaintiff assigned this judgment, and was then himself sued and had an execution issued against him, his rights under this recorded judgment could not be sold under this execution, because he had previously transferred all those rights."

"The attorney who had recovered the judgment which was thus recovered and assigned, and who stood as attorney to the assignee, was not at liberty to purchase it at the sale on execution for his own benefit. The purchase enured to the benefit of the client."

And in the report of that case it is stated at page 52 U. S. 234 that the assignment was made, inter alia, to cover the attorney's fees and other costs.

The court now decides,

1. That the present plaintiff being the same, the validity of the assignment, as to him, was decided in the former case.

2. The question, under the assignment, for attorney's fees was necessarily involved, and should have been made in the former trial. The former snit, therefore, constitutes a bar to the present.

3. The evidence now shows that no censure could be properly attributed to the attorney for his share in the transaction.

A full history of the transactions which led to the dispute is given in the report of the case of Stockton v. Ford, 11 How. 232. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

Page 59 U. S. 419

ChanRobles™ LawTube

google search for Search for

Supreme Court Decisions Philippine Supreme Court DecisionsUS Supreme Court Decisions



Browse By ->> Volume


Browse By ->> Year


  Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company | Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library |™