Hinsdill v. Safford
Supreme Court of Vermont
This was a trustee process, and, on the trial in the county court, from the disclosures and other testimony, the following facts appeared. The writ, in this case, was served on the ■trustees on the 22d day of February, 1837. H. Safford, on the 31st of January, 1837, gave to J. Whiton, the principal debtor, a note for $525, payable to said Whiton, or order, in one year.
Read the full summary
This was a trustee process, and, on the trial in the county court, from the disclosures and other testimony, the following facts appeared. The writ, in this case, was served on the ■trustees on the 22d day of February, 1837. H. Safford, on the 31st of January, 1837, gave to J. Whiton, the principal debtor, a note for $525, payable to said Whiton, or order, in one year. This note was, by Whiton, indorsed to Marvin Freeman, for good consideration, on the 10th day of February 1837, but no notice of that indorsement was given to Safford until after the commencement of this action. John Sharp, on…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinioh of the court was delivered by
Collamer, J.
No one should be adjudged trustee, unless the judgment would be a defence, to any subsequent action, which might afterwards be brought against him for the same debt. The statutes of 1797 and 1798, made up a congruous and consistent system. The statutes, directing the proceedings against trustees, provided, that any debt, taken by judgment from a trustee, should fully acquit him from any action brought by theprincipal debtor therefor. It is obvious that *312this statute, standing alone, and unaided by any other, would not protect the trustee…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Kieffer v. EhlerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1852
- Ayott v. SmithSupreme Court of Vermont · 1868
- Griswold v. DavisSupreme Court of Vermont · 1858