Lay v. Lay
Cases that cite this one
8 later published cases cite this decision.
- United States v. Shannon (Two Cases) (4th Cir. 1951)
- Ambassador Factors, Division Fleet Factors Corp. v. First American Bulk Carrier Corp. (In re Topgallant Lines, Inc.) (United States District Court for the District of Georgia 1991)
- United States v. Certain Lands (District Court, S.D. New York 1943)
- United Hay Co. v. Ford (Tex. Comm'n App. 1934)
- Matter of Topgallant Lines, Inc. (United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Georgia 1991)
- Estate of Button v. Anderson (Vt. 1942)
- Martin v. National Surety Co. (Supreme Court of the United States 1937)
- United Hay Co. v. Ford (Tex. 1934)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
Memorandum for the court by
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 ah assignment, the heirs at law prosecute error to correct the federal error thus assumed to have been corn*mitted. 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, 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.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.