Seward v. Arms
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Trustee Process. Smith College, a corporation duly established by law in this Commonwealth, was summoned as trustee of the principal defendant. The material parts of the trustee’s answers appear in the opinion. The Superior Court discharged the trustee; and the plaintiff appealed to this court.
1Opinion of the CourtField, J.
To charge the corporation, which is the alleged trustee in this case, it must affirmatively appear from its answers that it has credits of the defendant in its hands. Porter v. Stevens, 9 Cush. 530. It appears from these answers that the trustee is indebted for washing done by the wife of the defendant; that the contract for the washing was made by it with the defendant; but that it is informed and believes that the defendant, in making the contract, acted as the agent of his wife, and that it understands that the indebtedness is to the wife. By the Pub. Sts. c. 147, § 4, this work of doing…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Fay v. SearsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1872
- First National Bank of Clinton v. BrightMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1879
- Mortland v. Bernard Little & TrusteeMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1884
- Sheehan v. MarstonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1882
3Cited by10 opinions
- Cardeza v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1945
- Matthew Cummings Co. v. GrandeMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1933
- Eastern Fur & Skin Co. v. SternfeldMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1919
- Cox v. Central Vermont RailroadMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1905
- Musolino, LoConte Co. v. CostaMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1939
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.