In Manchester v. Kendall (19 J. S. [51 N.Y. Super. Ct.] 460), which was affirmed by the Court of Appeals (103 N.Y. 638), a contract contained the provision that neither it nor any of the installments to grow due under it were to be assigned.
Summary of this case from Sacks v. Neptune Meter Co.Argued June 14, 1886
Decided October 5, 1886
W. McDermot for appellants.
David Thurston for respondents.
Agree to affirm; no opinion.
All concur.
Judgment affirmed.
In Manchester v. Kendall (19 J. S. [51 N.Y. Super. Ct.] 460), which was affirmed by the Court of Appeals (103 N.Y. 638), a contract contained the provision that neither it nor any of the installments to grow due under it were to be assigned.
Summary of this case from Sacks v. Neptune Meter Co.In Manchester v. Kendall (supra) it was provided that "this contract not to be assigned or any part thereof or any installments to grow due under the same."
Summary of this case from Sacks v. Neptune Meter Co.Full title:GEORGE N. MANCHESTER et al., Respondents, v . SUSAN M. KENDALL et al.…
Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Date published: Oct 5, 1886
It is one thing to agree that a chose in action shall not be assignable and that if assigned no right of…
Sullivan v. International Fidelity Ins. Co.ernational (see Dana Steel v Cell-San Constr. Co., 84 A.D.2d 756; Davis Accoustical Corp. v National Sur.…