Legal Opinion

Harnden v. Gould

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided March 4, 1879PublishedCited by 2 opinions

Trustee Process. Writ dated July 13, 1878, and returnable to the First District Court of Eastern Middlesex. The case was submitted to the Superior Court, and to this court on appeal on an agreed statement of facts in substance as follows : The defendant was defaulted. Thomas Appleton, summoned as trustee, answered that, at the time of service upon him, there were no goods, effects or credits of the defendant in his hands or possession.

Read the full summary

Trustee Process. Writ dated July 13, 1878, and returnable to the First District Court of Eastern Middlesex. The case was submitted to the Superior Court, and to this court on appeal on an agreed statement of facts in substance as follows : The defendant was defaulted. Thomas Appleton, summoned as trustee, answered that, at the time of service upon him, there were no goods, effects or credits of the defendant in his hands or possession. Subsequently, interrogatories were filed to the trustee, and he answered that he had boarded in the family of the defendant since April 1, 1878; that he…

1Opinion of the CourtMorton, J.

In Dawes v. Rodier, 125 Mass. 421, it was held that, if a married woman engages in the business of keeping a boarding-house, and neglects to file the certificate required by the St. of 1862, c. 198, the debts due to her for board are liable to attachment by the creditors of her husband. The question whether the St. of 1862, c. 198, was repealed by the St. of 1874, c. 184, was not raised in that case, but it is necessarily involved in the adjudication. This question is directly presented by the claimant in the case at bar, but we are of opinion that the ground taken by her cannot be maintained.

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Dawes v. RodierMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1878

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Copeland v. Mayor & AldermenMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1896
  2. Kay Jewelry Co. v. Board of Registration in OptometryMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1940

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API