Blake v. Jones
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
In this case there was no service of the writ on Jones, the principal debtor. The supposed trustee pleaded in abatement, commencing his plea thus: “And the said Samuel Taggart, who is summoned as trustee in said action, comes and defends,” &c.
Read the full summary
In this case there was no service of the writ on Jones, the principal debtor. The supposed trustee pleaded in abatement, commencing his plea thus: “And the said Samuel Taggart, who is summoned as trustee in said action, comes and defends,” &c. He then prays oyer of the writ and return, which being read, he alleges that the principal, within three years before the writ was sued, was resident at Adams, within the commonwealth ; and because an attested copy of the writ was not left at his last and usual place of abode, he prays judgment that the writ may be quashed. The plain- [ * 29 ] tiff, in…
1Opinion of the CourtParsons, C. J.
It is very clear, that to entitle any person summoned as trustee to appear and plead for the principal on his nonappearance, such person must have in his hands goods, effects, or credits, of the principal, on which the attachment shall take effect. This is the express provision of the statute. We are also satisfied that a person summoned as a trustee, who in fact has no effects, cannot plead this plea, or any plea in his own name, except where he is personally injured by the process; as when he is the only person summoned as trustee, and is called to answer out of his county. In the present…
2Cited by9 opinions
- Zani v. Phandor Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1932
- National Shawmut Bank v. City of WatervilleMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1934
- Williams v. ShelbyOregon Supreme Court · 1865
- Groel v. United Electric Co.New Jersey Court of Chancery · 1904
- President of the Maine Bank v. HerveySupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1842
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.