16 Johns. 51 | N.Y. Sup. Ct. | 1819
Two points were made : 1. That the assignment of the sealed obligation to Brady, not being under seal, no interest passed; 2. That the judgment and proceeding in the Justice’s Court, was a bar to this suit.
It has even been doubted, whether a freehold interest in land might not be conveyed by writing without seal. This Court has decided, that a lease for years may be assigned without seal; and, in Runyan v. Mersereau, (11 Johns. Rep. 538.) we held, that a mortgage might be assigned by parol, accompanied with a delivery. There is no foundation for this objection.
This Court has repeatedly declared- its determination to notice and protect the assignee of a chose in action, against the frauds of the assignor and the obligor, of promiser. Here it is evident, from the facts set out in the replication, that the sealed obligation had been assigned to Brady ; that he had given notice to the defendant long before the suit in the Justice’s Court, and that suit was a mere contrivance.
Judgment for the plaintiff.