Kieselstein v. Shoebel

Summary

The court considered whether a debtor's payment to the original creditor discharged the debt after the debtor had received notice that the claim had been assigned to the plaintiff. Because the evidence concerning competing assignments and the timing of payment was confused and incomplete, the judgment was reversed and a new trial was ordered.

Holdings

1. Either partner of Ahrens & Slimer could execute an assignment of the claim due to the firm.
2. A debtor who pays the original creditor after receiving due notice that the claim has been assigned to another does so at the debtor's peril.
3. The judgment had to be reversed and a new trial granted because the evidence was so confused, meager, indefinite, and unsatisfactory that the circumstances surrounding the competing assignments and payment could not be determined.

Questions Presented

1. Whether a single partner could execute an assignment of an account due to the partnership.
2. Whether payment by the debtor to the original creditor after notice of an assignment discharged the debtor's obligation.
3. Whether the confused, meager, and indefinite evidence required reversal and a new trial.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded