Bayer v. Lovelace
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Contbact against “ Thomas T. Lovelace and William Krugel as copartners under the firm name and style of T. T. Lovelace and Company and having their usual place of business in Cartagena in the Republic of Colombia,” as defendants, and “ Compañía Fluvial de Cartagena, a corporation duly organized under the laws of the State of West Virginia and having its usual place of business in Boston in the county of Suffolk, trustee of the said defendants’ goods, effects and credits.”
Read the full summary
Contbact against “ Thomas T. Lovelace and William Krugel as copartners under the firm name and style of T. T. Lovelace and Company and having their usual place of business in Cartagena in the Republic of Colombia,” as defendants, and “ Compañía Fluvial de Cartagena, a corporation duly organized under the laws of the State of West Virginia and having its usual place of business in Boston in the county of Suffolk, trustee of the said defendants’ goods, effects and credits.” Writ dated December 8, 1904. There was no return of any service upon either defendant by publication or otherwise. The…
1Opinion of the CourtKnowltoe, C. J.
The plaintiff, an inhabitant of another State, sued a non-resident partnership by trustee process, and summoned as trustee a foreign corporation, having a usual place of business in this Commonwealth, serving the writ on' the commissioner of corporations under the authority of the St. 1903, c. 437, § 58. The trustee owed Krugel, one of the defendant partners, $2,000 upon an accepted order. The first question in the case is whether this debt could be attached effectively by a process of this kind.
The case falls exactly within that part of the R. L. c. 189, § 1, which permits a foreign…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Harris v. BalkSupreme Court of the United States · 1905
- Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co. v. SturmSupreme Court of the United States · 1899
- Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. DeerSupreme Court of the United States · 1906
- Rothschild v. KnightMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1900
- King v. CrossSupreme Court of the United States · 1899
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Universal Adjustment Corp. v. Midland Bank, Ltd., of LondonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1933
- Parrot v. Mexican Central Railway Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1911
- Parker, Peebles & Knox v. El SaiehSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1928
- Rosenthal v. MaletzMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1948
- Arlington Trust Co. v. Le VineMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1935
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.