Moeser v. Schneider

Citations

• 158 Pa. 412
• 27 A. 1088
• 1893 Pa. LEXIS 1603

Syllabus

<p>Equitable assignment — Affidavit of defence — Act of May 10, 1881.</p> <p>An equitable assignment is an agreement in the nature of a declaration of trust, which, a chancellor never hesitates to execute when it has been made on a valuable, or even good consideration. The form of the assignment is immaterial, so that there be a clearly expressed intention of an immediate transfer of the right to the assignee.</p> <p>In an action against an agent to recover the amount of a legacy collected by him for plaintiff’s intestate Knuchel, defendant filed an affidavit of defence in which he averred that he had been employed by Knuchel to collect an inheritance for him; that Knuchel was indebted to Jampen; that in order to pay this indebtedness and secure Jampen for money which he was about to advance, Knuchel directed defendant to prepare an assignment of the inheritance to Jampen, and that this was done; that by this instrument Knuchel and wife acknowledged themselves indebted for board and lodging and money loaned, and bound themselves to pay the same with the money from the inheritance. The affidavit further averred that on the faith of this assignment the said Jampen loaned Knuchel the further sum of two hundred and fifty dollars, making a total indebtedness of four hundred and fifty-six dollars and fifty cents; that Knuchel signed and deposited this instrument with defendant and ordered him to pay Jampen; that he accepted said assignment as an order to pay and promised Jampen to pay the fund to him when received; that the amount of the inheritance so received was less than $156. Held, that an equitable assignment of the fund was sufficiently averred by taking the instrument in connection with the averments of the affidavit.</p> <p>The act of May 10, 1881, P. L. 17, requiring acceptances exceeding $20.00 to be in writing, does not apply to such a case. The objection that the acceptance is not in writing can only come from the acceptor. Ulrich v. Hower, 156 Pa. 419, appli