Richardson Manufacturing Co. v. Brooks
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
Agreed statement. Action for money had and received. The case appears in the opinion. Money had and received: Keene v. Savage, 75 Maine, 138. Title of assignee: Rogers v. Whitehouse, 71 Maine, 222. Counsel argued: That the amounts the plaintiff claims to recover in this action, were not, at the time they were paid to A. W. Brooks, the property of the plaintiff, but only a part and parcel of the estate of' Kelley & Eastman; that the plaintiff is entitled to receive from said…
Read the full summary
Agreed statement. Action for money had and received. The case appears in the opinion. Money had and received: Keene v. Savage, 75 Maine, 138. Title of assignee: Rogers v. Whitehouse, 71 Maine, 222. Counsel argued: That the amounts the plaintiff claims to recover in this action, were not, at the time they were paid to A. W. Brooks, the property of the plaintiff, but only a part and parcel of the estate of' Kelley & Eastman; that the plaintiff is entitled to receive from said Brooks the same dividend he has paid all the creditors; that the plaintiff is not a preferred creditor under their…
1Opinion of the CourtStrout, J.
Plaintiffs consigned certain machines to Kelley & Eastman for sale, under a written contract which provided that “all machines and proceeds of sale, whether in notes, cash or account, shall specifically be and remain the property of the Richardson Manufacturing Company, held in trust in your (Kelley & Eastman ) hands until all indebtedness incurred under this arrangement shall have been paid in full. ” The contract contained no element of sale to Kelley & Eastman, present or prospective. No title to the merchandise passed, or ever was to pass, to them. Kelley & Eastman sold of these consigned…
2Cited by1 opinion
- In re BatchelderDistrict Court, D. Maine · 1964