Continental Purchasing Co. v. Van Raalte Co.
295 N.Y.S. 867, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6881, 251 A.D. 151 (1937)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A debtor who has received notice of a valid assignment of a debt is liable to the assignee for any subsequent payments made to the assignor. The assignee is not required to exhibit the original assignment document to the debtor to perfect this right, especially when the debtor has acknowledged the assignment through partial performance.
Facts:
- Ethel L. Potter had an account with Steckler Sporting Goods Store, which was subsequently assigned to the plaintiff, Continental Purchasing Co.
- On April 21, 1934, Potter executed an assignment of all her future wages from her employer, Van Raalte Co., Inc., to the plaintiff as security for the debt.
- On September 12, 1934, the plaintiff provided written notice of this assignment to Van Raalte Co.
- Van Raalte Co. acknowledged receipt of the notice and, with the plaintiff's consent, arranged a payment plan to deduct a portion of Potter's weekly wages.
- Over the next two months, Van Raalte Co. made six separate deductions from Potter's wages and forwarded the payments to the plaintiff.
- After November 20, 1934, Van Raalte Co. ceased payments to the plaintiff.
- The plaintiff sent another formal notice and demand for payment, but Van Raalte Co. subsequently paid the wages in question directly to Potter.
Procedural Posture:
- Continental Purchasing Co. (plaintiff) brought an action against Van Raalte Co. (defendant) in the City Court of Dunkirk, a court of first instance.
- The City Court of Dunkirk entered a judgment in favor of the defendant, Van Raalte Co.
- The plaintiff appealed to the County Court of Chautauqua county, an intermediate appellate court.
- The County Court affirmed the judgment of the City Court.
- The plaintiff (appellant) then appealed to the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a debtor, who has received notice of a valid wage assignment and acknowledged it through partial payments, relieved of liability to the assignee for subsequent payments made directly to the assignor simply because the original assignment document was not filed with or exhibited to the debtor?
Opinions:
Majority - Edgcomb, J.
No. A debtor is not relieved of liability to the assignee by paying the assignor after receiving sufficient notice of the assignment. Once a debtor has notice of a valid assignment, they are put on guard, and any payments made to the assignor are at the debtor's own peril. The court reasoned that no specific form of notice is required, so long as it informs the debtor of the assignee's ownership or puts the debtor on inquiry. Here, Van Raalte Co. not only received written notice but also acknowledged the assignment's validity by making six partial payments to the assignee. The defendant's claim that it is immune from liability because the original assignment was not filed with or exhibited to it is without merit, as such a requirement is not necessary to bind a notified debtor.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the common law principle that notice is the critical event that obligates a debtor to an assignee. It clarifies that the debtor's duty to pay the assignee is not contingent upon procedural formalities like filing or presenting the assignment instrument, unless such a demand is made. The ruling protects the interests of assignees and the practice of using assignments as a commercial tool by placing the onus on the notified debtor to honor the transfer. By holding that a debtor's partial performance under an assignment constitutes acknowledgement, the case makes it more difficult for debtors to later feign ignorance or impose additional burdens on the assignee.
