Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 10.djvu/623

 TUFTB V. MATTHEWS. 611 �of Ehode Islaiid, which provide for the survival of actions for dam--' ages to the .person, or real or personal estate, it has been decided that actions for deceit or fraud, for pecuniary damages, will not lie. The damage done,must be to some specifie propertyof which' the per- son is the owner. It is not suffioient if the damage arises inciden- tally or collaterally. False representations by which one is induced to part with property do not appear to come within the provisions of the statate. Read v. Haick, 19 Pick. 47; Cutting v. Tower, 14 Gray, 183; U. S. V. Daniel, 6 How. 11; Henshaw v. Miller, 17 How. 212. �Section 5046 of the bankrupt act describes what property and rights pass to the assignee. The construction put upon the words "choses in action," there mentioned, excludes actions for personal tort such as the fraudulent and deceitful recommendation of a per- son as worthy of credit whereby goods were obtained, abuse of the garnishee process which injured the bankrupt's business, assault and battery, slander, and the like. In re Crockett, 2 N, B. E. 208; Noonan v. Orton, 12 N. B. E. 405; Dillard v. Gollins, 25 Gratt. 343. �The action before us is one for pecuniary damages arising from alleged false representations made to the bankrupt and to his as- signees, through which the bonds deposited as security for the pay- ment of the notes of one of the defendants were given up. So far as it may be contended that the plaintiflf has succeeded to any right of action the bankrupt may have had, it is clear, we think, that this chose in action did not pass to the assignees, and therefore did not pass to him ; and, so far as it may be claimed that this is a right of action that accrued to the assignee personally, we fail to discover any authority in the bankrupt act, or otherwise, for them to assign an action of this character. The right to complain of a fraud is not a merchantable commodity, say the court in De Hoghton v. Money, L. E. 2 Ch. App. 164. �Here such right has not only been sold once, but the first purchaser sells it to a second, who then brings suit in his own name. �Demurrer sustained. �See the right of action for fraud is not assignable. Dickinson v. Seaver, 44 Mich. 624; S. G. 7 N. W. Kep. 182. ��� �