Herbert v. Bronson
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Trustee process. Writ dated December 31, 1877, and served on January 1, 1878. The city of Fall River, summoned as trustee, answered that at the date of service upon it, it had in its hands belonging to the defendant the sum of $248. James Murphy, Jr., appeared as claimant of the funds in the hands o the trustee by virtue of an assignment, dated April 9, 1877, tr him from the defendant, of “all claims and demands I now have, and all which, at any time between the date hereof…
Read the full summary
Trustee process. Writ dated December 31, 1877, and served on January 1, 1878. The city of Fall River, summoned as trustee, answered that at the date of service upon it, it had in its hands belonging to the defendant the sum of $248. James Murphy, Jr., appeared as claimant of the funds in the hands o the trustee by virtue of an assignment, dated April 9, 1877, tr him from the defendant, of “all claims and demands I now have, and all which, at any time between the date hereof and the ninth day of April next, I may and shall have against the city of Fall River, for all sums of money due and for…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court.
It is well settled that money to be earned hereafter under a new engagement is not assignable. Mulhall v. Quinn, 1 Gray, 105. Hartley v. Tapley, 2 Gray, 565. Twiss v Cheever, 2 Allen, 40. Exceptions overruled.
2Cited by4 opinions
- Eagan v. LubyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1882
- McKneely v. ArmstrongTexas Supreme Court · 1919
- Shackleford v. Kiser Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1901
- Close v. Independent Gravel Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1911