Martin v. Imhsen
62 U.S. 394

Annotate this Case

U.S. Supreme Court

Martin v. Imhsen, 62 U.S. 21 How. 394 394 (1858)

Martin v. Imhsen

62 U.S. (21 How.) 394

Syllabus

In Pennsylvania, where a transfer of certain accounts was made, the assignee had only an equitable interest, and could not sue in his own name. But when the suit was brought in Louisiana, where there is no distinction between a legal and equitable title, he could maintain the suit in his own name, and the assignment was good evidence.

An exception taken to the refusal of a judge to sign a bill of exceptions, under the circumstances of this case, requires no further notice.

Page 62 U. S. 395

The ruling of the court below, viz., that prescription was interrupted by a litigation which was pending between the parties shortly before the present suit was instituted, was, under the circumstances of the case, correct.

The case is explained in the opinion of the Court.

Official Supreme Court case law is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia case law is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.