Skip to content


Union Trust Company Vs. Walker - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtUS Supreme Court
Decided On
Case Number107 U.S. 596
AppellantUnion Trust Company
RespondentWalker
Excerpt:
union trust company v. walker - 107 u.s. 596 (1883) u.s. supreme court union trust company v. walker, 107 u.s. 596 (1883) union trust company v. walker decided march 12, 1883 107 u.s. 596 appeal from the circuit court of the united states for the southern district of illinois syllabus an assignment of such claims as are mentioned in union trust company v. souther, ante, p. 107 u. s. 591 , passes the right of the original holder to payment out of the fund in the hands of the receiver. mr. chief justice waite delivered the opinion of the court. this case differs from that of the union trust co. v. souther only in the fact that walker, the present intervenor and appellee, is the assignee by purchase.....
Judgment:
Union Trust Company v. Walker - 107 U.S. 596 (1883)
U.S. Supreme Court Union Trust Company v. Walker, 107 U.S. 596 (1883)

Union Trust Company v. Walker

Decided March 12, 1883

107 U.S. 596

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED

STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

Syllabus

An assignment of such claims as are mentioned in Union Trust Company v. Souther, ante, p. 107 U. S. 591 , passes the right of the original holder to payment out of the fund in the hands of the receiver.

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE delivered the opinion of the Court.

This case differs from that of the Union Trust Co. v. Souther only in the fact that Walker, the present intervenor and appellee, is the assignee by purchase from the original holders of the claims he seeks to have paid, and one of the questions certified is whether, being an assignee and not an original holder, he is entitled to payment. We have no hesitation in answering this question in the affirmative. As was said in Fosdick v. Schall, 99 U. S. 235 , 99 U. S. 253 , these creditors are paid, not because they have in law a lien on the mortgaged property or the income, but because in equity the earnings of the company constitute a fund for the payment of the expenses which their claims represent, before any income arises which ought to be applied to the discharge of the mortgage debt. Under such circumstances, it is a matter of no importance that the original creditor has parted with the claim. The right is one that attaches to the debt and not to the person of the original creditor. Consequently the right passes with an assignment of the debt.

Decree affirmed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //