Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 8.djvu/123

QEBUAN 8ATIN08 IN8TIXTJXI01I V. ADAB. rlQi �fund was the property of Newman & Co. before the check was exe- cuted, being the proceeds of a collection made for theiu by Adae & Co. As between the parties who are now claiming this fund, a court of equity -would have decreed the payment of it to Newman & Co. on the ground that Adae & Co.held it for them, as the proceeds of a col- lection made as their agents, and therefore proceeds of their property. Superintendent, etc., v. Heath, 2 McCarter, (N. J.) 22 ; Overseers of the Poor V. Bank of Va. 2 Gratt. 544. It is well settled that the princi- pal may follow his property into the hands of bis agent or factor, and recover it, or its proceeds, from him. Veil v. Adm'r of Mitchell, 4 Wash. 105; Bank v. King, 57 Pa. St. 202; Buch v. Forsyth, 14 Bush, 499 ; Cook t. Tallis, 18 Wall. 332. �An assignee for general creditors can assert no claim that was not good in the hands of his assignor. Roberts v. Austin, 26 lowa, 315; Hagerty v. Pulmer, 6 John. 437; Walker v. Miller, 11 Ala. 1067; Clark V. Flint, 22 Pick. 231; Burrill on Assignments, 483, 484, and authorities cited. �If there had been no assignment, and this were a controversy between Adae & Co. and Newman & Co., it would, I apprehend, hardly be eontended that the right of the latter to a decree for the money could be questioned. Such a decree would only give them their own, — the proceeds of their property, to-wit, certain choses in action left with their agent, Adae & Co., for collection, and by them collected. As the assignees can assert no claim as purchasers, and have no equities which did not belong to the assignors, I am clearly of the opinion that the defendants Newman & Co. are entitled to a decree for the amount of the face of their bill of exchange, to-wit, $1,072. The balance of the fund, after payment of costs, should go to the assignees. �Decree accordingly. ��� �