Hinkle v. Wanzer,
58 U.S. 353 (1854)

Annotate this Case
  • Syllabus  | 
  • Case

U.S. Supreme Court

Hinkle v. Wanzer, 58 U.S. 353 (1854)

Hinkle v. Wanzer

58 U.S. 353


Where a complainant in chancery averred that a note of which he was one of the makers had been deposited by the holder, amongst other collateral securities, with a person who had become responsible for the debts of the holder and averred further that enough had been collected from these collateral securities to meet and defray all the responsibilities incurred, the evidence showed that this was not the fact. The amount collected was not enough, by a large deficiency, to reimburse the losses incurred as endorser and surety.

The evidence is not sufficient to show that the note had been paid by another of the makers than the complainant, or that a release had been executed to him by the holder of the note. The answer is substantially responsive to the charge, and denies it. Other circumstances disclosed in the evidence sustain the answer.

The collateral securities, being deposited with counsel for the purpose of paying the debts of the insolvent as they were collected, were properly held by the counsel as a trust fund, and it was correct to allow the surety to control the judgment upon the note in question.

The cases examined with respect to the assignment of equitable interests and chosen in action.

The case is fully stated in the opinion of the court.

Page 58 U. S. 358

Disclaimer: 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.