Haven v. Wentworth
Superior Court of New Hampshire
A person cannot be charged as a trustee on account of a supposed u debt,” if the debt be contingent. Nor can he be charged on account of “ goods,” &c. in his hands, unless they are subject to attachment or are so situated, that an action would lie for them ia favor of the principal.
Read the full summary
A person cannot be charged as a trustee on account of a supposed u debt,” if the debt be contingent. Nor can he be charged on account of “ goods,” &c. in his hands, unless they are subject to attachment or are so situated, that an action would lie for them ia favor of the principal. The invariable usage of an agent in respect to the funds with which he is entrusted binds his employers, if that usage is known and recognized by them. ■ Such funds, when held as security for a certain class of the creditors of the principal, do not render the agent trustee to other creditors till the first class…
1Opinion of the CourtWoodbury, J.
Our statute in relation to trustees is a substantial transcript of a statute in Massachusetts on the same subject; and both of these statutes in many respects resemble the custom of London concerning foreign attachments and garnishees.! 1) . J . ? , , , . /
Hence the decisions under the above custom and under the Massachusetts statute have always been thought entitled to much weight in the construction of our own statute. Under them it has been held, that a person cannot be charged as a trustee for “ credits” or “ debts,” unless an absolute debt or liability exist against him in favor of the…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- President, Directors, & Co. v. PageMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1812
3Cited by3 opinions
- Forbes v. BoyntonSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1973
- Kaley v. AbbotSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1843
- Clement v. ClementSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1849