Phenix Bank in Connecticut v. Sullivan
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
This was a bill in equity, representing that the plaintiffs, on the 23d of May, 1827, were creditprs of the Boston Glass Manufactory; that by an indenture bearing date of that day, between the manufactory of the first part, the defendants of the second part,, and all those persons who should become parties thereto of the third part, the property of the manufactory was assigned to the defendants and accepted by them in trust to distribute the net proceeds ratably among the…
Read the full summary
This was a bill in equity, representing that the plaintiffs, on the 23d of May, 1827, were creditprs of the Boston Glass Manufactory; that by an indenture bearing date of that day, between the manufactory of the first part, the defendants of the second part,, and all those persons who should become parties thereto of the third part, the property of the manufactory was assigned to the defendants and accepted by them in trust to distribute the net proceeds ratably among the creditors of the manufactory ; that by the indenture it was provided, that in case any creditor should, for the space of…
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam,.
We are of opinion that the plaintiffs have no right to become parties to the indenture, the six months having expired before they made application for that purpose. The property is assigned, through the trustees, to the creditors who executed the instrument seasonably. Public notice was given, so that all the creditors might have an opportunity of sharing in *419the trust fund. The plaintiffs had an agent in Boston who had control of this particular demand, and they must have had notice of the assignment.1
Bill dismissed.
See Battles v. Folies, 21 Pick. 239; De Caters v. Le Ray De…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Coe v. HuttonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1815
- De Caters v. Le Ray De Chaumont & KanadyNew York Court of Chancery · 1831