TUF'Ib V. MAXTHEWS. 609 �TuFTS V. Matthews and another. �(Oircuit Uuurt, D. Rhode laland. March 4, 1882.) �1. Deceit— RiGHT OF Action not Assignable. �The right of action for damages for a deceit is not assignable, and does not pass to the assignee of the bankmpt �2. AsSIGIiMENT. �As a rule, only such actions are assignaViIe as survive the death of a person, and would go to his executor or administrator. Where there is nothing, such as -would survive the death of a person, there is nothing capable of being transferred. �3. Case Stated — Right op Action. �Where the assignee of the purchaser from the assignees of a bankrupt of all the assets of the bankrupt remaining in their hands, brings an action for pecu- niary damages arising from alleged false representations made to the bankrupt and to his assigns through which certain flrst-mortgage railway bonds deposited as security for certain notes of one of the defendants were given up, hdd, that ■whatever right of action the bankrupt may have had, this eJiose in action did not pass to his assignees, and thcrefore ao right of action passed to the plain- till. �At Law. �Charles M. Barnes and Hyde, Dlckerson d Howe, for plaintiff. �James Tellingimst, for defendants. �CoLT, D. J. This is an action for deceit. The defendants have demurred to the declaration. The main question raised by the demurrer is whether an action of deceit is assignable. The facts alleged, so far as it is found necessary to state them, are as follows : �One Natlian Matthews, of Boston, was adjudicated a bankrupt upon peti- tion flled August 30, 1878, and assignees were duly appointed. On December 19, 1879, the assignees sold all the assets of the bankrupt remaining in their hands, and all their rights of action against the defendants, to Benjamin F. Brooks ; and on January 22, 1880, Edwin Tufts, the plaintiff, became the pur- chaser from Brooks. Among the assets of the bankrupt were claims to a large amount upon promissory notes made, in 1875, by Edward Matthews, of New York, one of the defendants. In February, 1877, an agreement was entered into by which Nathan Matthews was to surrender a large part of these notes, and discontinue proceedings in bankruptcy already commenced against Edward Matthews, in New York, upon certain terms, which, however, were never carried ont by Edward Matthews, though the proceedings in bankruptcy against him were withdrawn. At the same time, as a part of this agreement, there were deposited, as security for the payment of Edward's notes, until he should fulfil the terms of the agreement, and make the payments called for under it, with William H. Williams, of New York, 250 of the flrst-mortgage bonds of the Carolina Central Bailway, each of the par value of ©1,000. It is v.l0,no.6— 39 ��� �
