Display Mode
Dark
Dark
Light
Light
Theme Cover
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Search History
No search history
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Media
Term
Opinion Writer
Direction
Field

Leggett v. Allen, Assignee

• 1883 • 110 U.S. 741 • Waite Court
In Leggett v. Allen, Assignee, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a debtor could be held liable for a debt that had been assigned to another party. The case involved a debt that had been assigned to the defendant, Allen, by the debtor, Leggett. Leggett argued that he was not liable for the debt because he had assigned it to Allen. The Supreme Court held that Leggett was liable for the debt because the assignment was invalid. The Court reasoned that the assignment...Open Case
Score:
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms
1 results found
Become a Sponsor
Support Us
Feedback: We can do better!

Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Chief Waite Court
Term: 1883
110 U.S. 741
4 S. Ct. 195
28 L. Ed. 313
1884 U.S. LEXIS 1735

Leggett v. Allen, Assignee

  • Pro
  • Pro
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In Leggett v. Allen, Assignee, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a debtor could be held liable for a debt that had been assigned to another party. The case involved a debt that had been assigned to the defendant, Allen, by the debtor, Leggett. Leggett argued that he was not liable for the debt because he had assigned it to Allen. The Supreme Court held that Leggett was liable for the debt because the assignment was invalid. The Court reasoned that the assignment was invalid because it was not in writing and was not supported by consideration. The Court also held that the assignment was invalid because it was not made in accordance with the applicable state law. The Court concluded that Leggett was liable for the debt and that Allen was not entitled to recover it from him.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In Leggett v. Allen, Assignee, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a judgment against an assignor of a promissory note could be enforced against the assignee in New York state court. The majority opinion held that it could not because under New York law at the time, such judgments were considered void and unenforceable. Justice Field dissented from this decision on two grounds: firstly, he argued that there was no evidence to suggest that Congress intended for federal courts to interfere with state laws regarding assignments; secondly, he argued that even if Congress had done so in this case by passing legislation allowing suits against assignees of notes like these to proceed in federal court without regard for local laws or customs prohibiting them from doing so, then they would have been unconstitutional as infringing upon states' rights. In conclusion, Justice Field believed that since there was no indication either way as to what Congress's intentions were concerning this issue and since any attempt by them to override existing state laws would have been unconstitutional anyway - then it should be left up to each individual state's legislature (and not the federal government) as how best handle cases involving assignments of notes like these going forward.

Opinion written by Justice MRWaite
Decided: Mar 10, 1884
PDF viewer is not available.
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
AI Assist
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
PDF viewer is not available.
Oral Transcripts
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Ask Etalia.ai
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Audio of Oral Arguments
Free Trial!
Become a Sponsor

Support Us
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms