Page:United States Reports, Volume 1.djvu/460

Rh 

1789.

For the Plaintiƒƒ, in anfwer to thefe objections, it was infifted, that the affignment was under the act of affembly ; and the following books were cited. 1Bac.Abr. 527.30. 2Com.Dig. 560.a. 4; 2 Black.Rep. 1640. L.Raym. 442. 1 Salk. 133. That, by all the cafes cited, it appeared, that the word aƒƒigned amounts to a covenant that the money ʃhould be paid ; that it was immaterial whether the affignment was legally made to Lynn,  or not ; fince, if he had affigned what he had not a right to affign, that would in itfelf be a breach to fupport an action of covenant ; that a bill, originally negotiable, will be fo in the hands of every indorfee, although, the indorfement fhould not be to order. 1Black. 295. 1Stra. 557.––And that as this bond was affignable in its nature, by virtue of an act of affembly, the defendant, having undertaken to affign it, rendered himfelf liable in action of covenant to every fubfequent affignee. And if a demand was at all neceffary, it fufficiently appeared in the general allegation in the declaration.

The now delivered the unanimous opinion of the Court ;––That the affignment by Joʃeph Parker to Joʃeph Lynn  was not an affignment according to the act of affembly ( 1State Laws 77) but only a transfer of the equitable intereft in the bond ; and that Joʃeph Lynn could not by virtue thereof maintain an action againft the obligor in his own name. The bond was payable to Leʃtargette ; and, although Parker might have releafed it, it could only at common law, be fued or affigned by the former. See ''Frank. Cent.'' 221. ca. 75.

That Joʃeph Lynn, the defendant, only affigned his equitable intereft in the bond to George Turner. It appears indeed manifeftly by the previous affignment of Joʃeph Parker (which was equally known to Turner and to Lynn) that he had no other intereft to affign. It is, therefore, the mere transfer of a choʃe in action; and, even if an action of covenant might have been brought by George Turner againft Lynn on the word affigned; yet, no fuch action could be maintained againft him by the prefent Plaintiffs, as Lynn's affignment is not made to George Turner and his aʃʃigns.

That the covenant implied by the word aʃʃifned, extends only to this, that the affignee fhould receive the money from the obligor to his own ufe ; and, if the obligee fhould receive it, that then the affignor would be anfwerable over for it.



HE Defendant was brought before the Court on a Habeas Corpus, when the following facts appeared;––That this fuit Rh