From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hogan v. Black

Supreme Court of California
Oct 28, 1884
66 Cal. 41 (Cal. 1884)

Opinion

         Department One

         Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the city and county of San Francisco, and from an order refusing a new trial.

         COUNSEL:

         J. C. Bates, for Appellant.

          D. H. Whittemore, for Respondents.


         JUDGES: McKee, J. Ross, J., and McKinstry, J., concurred.

         OPINION

          McKEE, Judge

         Pending the action in hand for the foreclosure of a street assessment lien, to satisfy a demand for work done under the street law of the city and county of San Francisco, the defendants settled the matter in suit with the plaintiff in the action, by giving him a sum of money less than the amount demanded. Upon receiving [4 P. 944] the money, the plaintiff satisfied the demand and cancelled the assessment. But before doing so, he had assigned and set over the cause of action to his attorney in the action, and the latter continued the prosecution of the action in the name of the plaintiff without notice to the defendants of the assignment to him; and when the defendants settled with the plaintiff, they had no notice, actual or constructive, of any assignment by him.

         As between the assignor and the assignee, the assignment transferred the interest of the plaintiff in the subject-matter of the action; but the assignee could not avail himself of the benefit of the same against the defendants in the action, without notifying them of the assignment, or without having himself substituted for the plaintiff in the action. ( § 385, C. C. P.; Doll v. Anderson , 27 Cal. 249.)

         The settlement made by the defendants with the nominal plaintiff, without notice, actual or constructive, of any assignment of the cause of action, was, therefore, valid against the secret assignee (§ 368, supra ); and his only remedy, under these circumstances, was against the plaintiff in the action, and not against the defendants. Nor did he have any attorney's lien for costs in the action, by which he could disturb the satisfaction of the demand and the cancellation of the assessment by the plaintiff. (Mansfield v. Dorland , 2 Cal. 507; Russell v. Conway , 11 Cal. 103.)

         Judgment and order affirmed.


Summaries of

Hogan v. Black

Supreme Court of California
Oct 28, 1884
66 Cal. 41 (Cal. 1884)
Case details for

Hogan v. Black

Case Details

Full title:JARIUS HOGAN, Appellant, v. KATHARINE J. BLACK, Administratrix of the…

Court:Supreme Court of California

Date published: Oct 28, 1884

Citations

66 Cal. 41 (Cal. 1884)
4 P. 943

Citing Cases

Rosenberg v. Lawrence

Even if there was a valid express contract for the payment to the attorneys of a contingent fee, it is…

Mutual Bldg. & Loan Assn. v. Corum

In Buckeye Refining Co. v. Kelly, 163 Cal. 8, 13 [ 124 P. 536, Ann. Cas. 1913E, 840], which was a proceeding…