Brown v. George Foster & Trustees
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Samuel Gray and John Harding were summoned as trustees of Foster, the principal defendant. It appeared from the answer of Gray, and from an affidavit of a third person, which the parties agreed should be used as evidence, that Foster, on the 23d of June, 1837, executed an assignment of his property to Gray and Harding, under St. 1836, c. 238 : That immediately upon the execution of said assignment, Foster made oath oefore a magistrate, that he thereby conveyed all his prop…
Read the full summary
Samuel Gray and John Harding were summoned as trustees of Foster, the principal defendant. It appeared from the answer of Gray, and from an affidavit of a third person, which the parties agreed should be used as evidence, that Foster, on the 23d of June, 1837, executed an assignment of his property to Gray and Harding, under St. 1836, c. 238 : That immediately upon the execution of said assignment, Foster made oath oefore a magistrate, that he thereby conveyed all his prop erty, not exempted by law from attachment, for the benefit of ail his creditors ; and that a certificate of said oath was…
1Opinion of the CourtShaw, C. J.
The question is, whether the trustees are liable to be charged on their answers. It appears by the answers, that George Foster, the principal debtor, made an assignment to the trustees for the benefit of his creditors, purporting to be made conformably to St. 1836, c. 238, respecting the assignment' of the estate of insolvent debtors. Before the assignment was executed by the creditors, but after it was executed by the debtor and trustees, the plaintiff made his attachment. If, therefore, the assignment was not valid according to the statute, the title of the attaching creditor would have…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Lewis v. SmithSupreme Court of Colorado · 1909