Majority
p. 353Chamberlin against Day.
Headnote
Chamberlin obtained judgment in this Court against Day, for $ Ofi.Gl, at August term, 1824, which was assigned by Chamberlin to Wiley, for a valuable consideration paid, without any notice or information, that Day had purchased a judgment against Chamberlin, nor had Chamberlin any notice or in formation to this effect, at the time of the assignment. A fi. fa. had issued upon the judgment in favour of Chamberlin, upon which the Sheriff had levied $30. On the other hand, one Gold had recovered a judgment, in this Court, against Chamberlin, in October term, 1823, for $172,72, which Gold, for a valuable consideration paid, sold and assigned to Day, on the 14th June, 1824,It was now moved that the Deputy be ordered to pay back the $30 to Day, and that the residue of Chamberlin’s judgment be set off against the judgment assigned to Day,
A» assignee of a chose in action takes it subject to all equities existing against it a1 the time of the assignment, though he have no notice of such equity.
Where W purchased a judgment of C, against D, without notice that D had previously purchased a judgment against C, held, that D might, notwithstanding, set off his judgment so purchased, against the judgment in favour of C.
Assignee of a judgment against the plaintiff, allowed, on motion, to set it off against the judgment in favour of the plaintiff against the assignee.
E. S. Lee, for the motion.
W. W. Brown, contra.
Wiley took the assignment subject to all the equi-. ties actually existing against Chamberlin’s judgment at the time of the assignment. Want of notice will not protect against these. Day had purchased and took an assignment pf Gold’s judgment, before Chamberlin’s was assigned ; and having a right to this set off prior to that assignment, it did not divest that right. The motion must be granted.
Rule accordingly.