State Ex Rel. Rice v. Hearn

Sep 5, 1891
Reporters:
,
Before:
Merrimos
Mérrimos, C. J.:

The assignment of the judgment to Reddin for the use and benefit of ‍​‌‌​​​‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌​​‌‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌​​​‌​‌​​​‌​​‌‌​​‌​‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌​​​‌​​‌​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌​​‌‌‌​​‌‌‌​​‌‌​‍the appellees was a legitimate transaction, and the latter could compel him to a due observance of their equitable rights. It is very clear, as the authorities cited by the ‍​‌‌​​​‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌​​‌‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌​​​‌​‌​​​‌​​‌‌​​‌​‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌​​​‌​​‌​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌​​‌‌‌​​‌‌‌​​‌‌​‍appellees’ counsel abundantly show, that the appellant purchased the judgment subject to their rights and equities. Jordan v. Black, 2 Murphy, 80; Moody v. Sitton, 2 Ired. Eq., 382; Bank v. Bynum, 84 N. C. 24; Havens v. Potts, 86 N. C., 31; Freeman on Judgments, ‍​‌‌​​​‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌​​‌‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌​​​‌​‌​​​‌​​‌‌​​‌​‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌​​​‌​​‌​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌​​‌‌‌​​‌‌‌​​‌‌​‍§ 427; Black on Judgments, §§ 953, 956. See Sherwood v. Collier, 3 Dev., 380; Ferebee v. Doxey, 6 Ired., 446; Barringer v. Boyden, 7 Jones, 187.

*152 The appellees did not discharge the judgment by the deposit of money they made; it continued in,force ‍​‌‌​​​‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌​​‌‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌​​​‌​‌​​​‌​​‌‌​​‌​‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌​​​‌​​‌​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌​​‌‌‌​​‌‌‌​​‌‌​‍for their benefit. There was, however, no valid reason why they might not ask the Court to declare and treat it as satisfied and discharged, and this might be done ‍​‌‌​​​‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌​​‌‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌​​​‌​‌​​​‌​​‌‌​​‌​‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌​​​‌​​‌​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌​​‌‌‌​​‌‌‌​​‌‌​‍by motion, certainly in the absence of objection as to the course of procedure.

Judgment affirmed.