Rawson v. Dofner
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Trustee PROCESS. The H. 1ST. Slater Manufacturing Company, summoned as trustee of the principal defendant, answered that, at the time of the service of the writ upon it, it had not in its hands or possession any goods, chattels, or moneys of the defendant; and also answered certain interrogatories filed by the plaintiff.
Read the full summary
Trustee PROCESS. The H. 1ST. Slater Manufacturing Company, summoned as trustee of the principal defendant, answered that, at the time of the service of the writ upon it, it had not in its hands or possession any goods, chattels, or moneys of the defendant; and also answered certain interrogatories filed by the plaintiff. The record of the district court in which the action was tried stated that the trustee was charged, and'appealed from that judgment to the Superior Court, and “filed a bond not approved by said court, with sufficient sureties,” to prosecute the appeal, and pay all such costs…
1Opinion of the CourtC. Allen, J.
The true construction of the record, as amended, of the district court is, that the sureties were sufficient, but that the bond was not approved or disapproved by-said court, as no motion was made by. either party requesting approval or disapproval. This must mean that there was no formal action by the judge, but that the sureties were deemed by him to be sufficient. Construed thus, there was a sufficient compliance with the requirements of the statutes to give jurisdiction to the Superior .Court. Pub. Sts. c. 155, § 29; c. 154, §§ 39, 52; St. 1882, a. 95.
No other question being presented in…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Shea v. Neponset River Marine & Sportfishing, Inc.Massachusetts Appeals Court · 1982
- Inhabitants of Wellesley v. WashburnMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1892
- Parke v. MabeeMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1900