McCormick v. Towns
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Foreign Attachment. Issue between the plaintiff and claimant. Facts found by the court. When the writ was served on the trustees, January 27,1885, there was $22.50 due from them to the defendant for his labor during the preceding month. On the same day, and before the service of the writ, an order in writing, signed by the defendant, was left with the trustees, directing them to pay “to Horace E. Stevens fifty dollars or the amount due me for labor.”
Read the full summary
Foreign Attachment. Issue between the plaintiff and claimant. Facts found by the court. When the writ was served on the trustees, January 27,1885, there was $22.50 due from them to the defendant for his labor during the preceding month. On the same day, and before the service of the writ, an order in writing, signed by the defendant, was left with the trustees, directing them to pay “to Horace E. Stevens fifty dollars or the amount due me for labor.” When this order was given Towns owed Stevens $51.31 for groceries, and this indebtedness was the consideration for the order. The purpose of…
1Opinion of the CourtClark, J.
The order being given upon a sufficient consideration and without any fraudulent intent, the fact that the claimant knew that it would prevent other creditors of the defendant from collecting their debts by trustee process did not invalidate it. True v. Congdon, 44 N. H. 48. It is contended that the assignment was void as to creditors because there was an understanding that the defendant should have his house rent and coal paid for out of the earnings assigned, and that this was a secret trust fraudulent as to creditors. But it appears that the house rent and coal were furnished by the…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Fradd v. CharonSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1897