Ahrendt v. Bobbitt Et Al‪.‬

CROCKETT, Justice. Plaintiff received the claim upon which he sues by an assignment from one E. Sherman Hinds. The trial court
found that the defendants owed the debt, determined that the assignment was valid, and rendered judgment for the plaintiff.
On this appeal, defendants do not attack the finding that they owe the money but complain they do not owe it to the plaintiff
because the assignment was invalid. The sole question raised here is concerning the validity of said assignment. This assignment contract is dated April 23, 1948 and embraces claims against several persons or companies in addition to
the defendants and also deals with certain other matters. According to its terms, the purpose of the contract was to settle
accounts between the assignor Hinds and the Plaintiff Ahrendt, and it recites that, in addition to the assignment of these
claims, the assignor Hinds was to pay Ahrendt an additional $12,000. Of this sum, $9,000 was to be paid immediately and the
balance later. With respect to this cash payment, there was executed on the same date and appended to the assignment contract
a 'Supplemental Memorandum' which provides: 'The foregoing agreement shall not become effective and is contingent upon the
payment of the $9,000.00 in cash which has not been delivered as of the date of this agreement. Said amount is to be delivered
by the second party to the first party not later than Monday, April 26th, 1948.' The appellants' position is that this 'Supplemental
Memorandum' constituted a condition precedent to the assignment contract taking effect; and, that, since the $9,000 was never
paid, the assignment failed. If it had failed the cause of action would still belong to Hinds, or in fact to his trustee in
bankruptcy.