UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT DECISIONS ON-LINE

In the case of Stockton v. Ford, reported in 11 How. 232, this Court decided the following propositions, namely:

"Where there was a judgment which had been recorded under the laws of Louisiana and thus made equivalent to a mortgage upon the property of the debtor, and the plaintiff assigned this judgment, and was then himself sued and had an execution issued against him, his rights under this recorded judgment could not be sold under this execution, because he had previously transferred all those rights."

"The attorney who had recovered the judgment which was thus recovered and assigned, and who stood as attorney to the assignee, was not at liberty to purchase it at the sale on execution for his own benefit. The purchase enured to the benefit of the client."

And in the report of that case it is stated at page 52 U. S. 234 that the assignment was made, inter alia, to cover the attorney's fees and other costs.

The court now decides,

1. That the present plaintiff being the same, the validity of the assignment, as to him, was decided in the former case.

2. The question, under the assignment, for attorney's fees was necessarily involved, and should have been made in the former trial. The former snit, therefore, constitutes a bar to the present.

3. The evidence now shows that no censure could be properly attributed to the attorney for his share in the transaction.

A full history of the transactions which led to the dispute is given in the report of the case of Stockton v. Ford, 11 How. 232. clubjuris

Page 59 U. S. 419