From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Walcott v. Hilman

Supreme Court, Appellate Term
May 1, 1898
23 Misc. 459 (N.Y. App. Term 1898)

Opinion

May, 1898.

H.B. Bradbury, for appellant.

No appearance for respondent.


The justice below dismissed the complaint solely on the ground as stated by him "that the assignment as sworn to by witness shows collusion with assignee," plaintiff's assignor having testified that he expected to receive from the plaintiff the amount of any recovery that might be obtained in the action. This was error for which the judgment must be reversed. As between the assignor and the assignee there was a legal transfer of the cause of action, and this was sufficient to make the plaintiff the real party in interest for the purpose of maintaining the action. The question has been well settled by authority and requires no further discussion from us. Sheridan v. Mayor, 68 N.Y. 30, 32; Hecht v. Mothner, 4 Misc. 536; Curran v. Weiss, 6 id. 138, 139.

Judgment reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event.

GILDERSLEEVE and GIEGERICH, JJ., concur.

Judgment reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide event.


Summaries of

Walcott v. Hilman

Supreme Court, Appellate Term
May 1, 1898
23 Misc. 459 (N.Y. App. Term 1898)
Case details for

Walcott v. Hilman

Case Details

Full title:MERRITT D. WALCOTT, Appellant, v . FRANK HILMAN, Respondent

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Term

Date published: May 1, 1898

Citations

23 Misc. 459 (N.Y. App. Term 1898)
51 N.Y.S. 358