Hamil v. McIlroy

Citations

• 76 Cal. 312
• 18 P. 377
• 1888 Cal. LEXIS 883

Syllabus

<p>Assignment — Judgment — Want of Consideration. — The assignment of the judgment in question held to have been made to the defendant without consideration, and for the purpose of holding the same as a trustee for the plaintiff.</p> <p>Id. —Set-off of Judgments—Proceeding for—Res Adjudicata. —The action was brought to compel the defendant to reassign to the plaintiff, Hamil, a judgment which he had recovered against one Watson, on the 12th of May, 1884, and which on the same day he had assigned to the defendant, McIlroy. The reassignment was claimed on the ground that the original assignment to the defendant was without consideration.' On March 20, 1883, one Dufresnoy recovered a judgment against Hamil, and assigned it to one Briggs, who filed a petition in the superior court, joining Dufresnoy with him, asking that the judgment against Watson be set off by the judgment in favor of Dufresnoy, because Watson was the nominal and Dufresnoy the real party in the action of Hamil v. Watson. The court denied the petition, finding that the judgment in favor of Hamil had been assigned to McIlroy, and could not be offset because it was for the value of property which was exempt from execution. Held, that the proceeding to set off the judgment was not res adju dicata of any issue in the present case.</p>