How v. Field
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
The only question referred to the Court in this case was, whether John Frink was to be adjudged the trustee of Field. It appears from the answers of Frink, that when Field, the principal debtor, absconded, he left with Frink a number of papers, among which Frink afterwards, upon examination, found a note signed by Field for 500 dollars, payable by him to Frink, and that the note was signed and left with Frink without his privity; that previous to Field’s absconding he was…
Read the full summary
The only question referred to the Court in this case was, whether John Frink was to be adjudged the trustee of Field. It appears from the answers of Frink, that when Field, the principal debtor, absconded, he left with Frink a number of papers, among which Frink afterwards, upon examination, found a note signed by Field for 500 dollars, payable by him to Frink, and that the note was signed and left with Frink without his privity; that previous to Field’s absconding he was indebted to Frink in the sum of 536 dollars, 94 cents; that for this sum Frink requested security, on which Field gave him…
1Opinion of the Court
* The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Parsons, C. J.
On the facts disclosed, we are of opinion that Frink must be discharged. He had not in his hands, at the time the writ was served, any goods, effects or credits of Field. Any debts due from the debtor to Frink, whether the debts are genuine or fictitious, cannot be goods, effects or credits of the debtor in Frink’s hands. He owed the debtor nothing, and he has no chattels in his possession, which being exposed by him Tan be taken in execution.
Paine and Ujpham, for the trustee.
The lands mortgaged are not effects within the statute,…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Hardy v. De LeonTexas Supreme Court · 1849
- Banning v. SibleySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1859
- National Union Bank v. BrainerdSupreme Court of Vermont · 1893
- Wright v. BosworthSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1835