Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google Scholar
on the Web
Google Web Search
MSN Web Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google News Search
Google News Archive Search
Yahoo! News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com Search
Google Blog Search
Technorati Blog Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
USA Constitution Annotated
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Online Case Law
Cornell LII
FastCase $
Lexis $
LexisOne
Loislaw $
USSCPlus.com $
VersusLaw $
Link to the Case Preview: http://supreme.justia.com/us/248/24/
Link to the Full Text of Case: http://supreme.justia.com/us/248/24/case.html
U.S. Supreme Court
Lay v. Lay, 248 U.S. 24 (1918)
Lay v. Lay
No. 633
Motion to dismiss or affirm submitted November 4, 1918
Decided November 18, 1918
248 U.S. 24
ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
Syllabus
As between the parties to it, an assignment of a claim against the government for property taken during the Civil War, or of the right to a fund appropriated by Congress to satisfy a judgment therefor, is not made void by Rev.Stats. § 3477.
118 Miss. 549 affirmed.
The case is stated in the opinion.
Memorandum for the Court by the CHIEF JUSTICE.
The right to a fund resulting from the payment of an appropriation by Congress to satisfy a judgment for the value of property taken during the Civil War is the issue here involved. The contestants are the heirs at law of the original claimant and persons holding under an assignment by her of all her right to the claim or fund. The court enforced the assignment.
Under the assumption that the claimant was prohibited by the law of the United States (§ 3477 Rev.Stats.) from making an assignment, the heirs at law prosecute error to correct the federal error thus assumed to have been committed. But the assumption indulged in as to the effect of the law of the United States is without merit. McGowan v. Parish, 237 U. S. 285, 237 U. S. 294, and cases cited. This renders it unnecessary to consider whether, if the heirs at law were entitled to the fund, they would be liable to pay the full sum of the attorney's fee contracted for by the transferee and the duty to pay which the transferee and those in privity do not dispute.
Judgment affirmed.
