Provencher v. Brooks
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Foreign Attachment. Issue between the plaintiff and' the claimant. Facts found by the court. December 7, 1885, the defendant, by his deed'of that date, in consideration of his then indebtedness to the claimant, and in further consideration “ that the said Childs shall furnish and pay for my and my child’s board, and pay as much as possible towards whatever other claims may be held against me by other parties,” assigned to Childs the wages then due and to become due to him…
Read the full summary
Foreign Attachment. Issue between the plaintiff and' the claimant. Facts found by the court. December 7, 1885, the defendant, by his deed'of that date, in consideration of his then indebtedness to the claimant, and in further consideration “ that the said Childs shall furnish and pay for my and my child’s board, and pay as much as possible towards whatever other claims may be held against me by other parties,” assigned to Childs the wages then due and to become due to him from the trustee for the term of ’ six months. The assignment also contained the following: “ And it is furthermore agreed…
1Opinion of the CourtCarpenter, J.
The question is, whether a provision in a laborer’s assignment of his future wag’es, that they, or a part of them, shall be applied to provide necessaries for himself and his family, is merely evidence of fraud, or fraudulent as matter of law —“ conclusive proof of a fraudulent intent to defeat creditors.” Coolidge v. Melvin, 42 N. H. 510, 522, 530. The question is not touched by Runnells v. Bosquet, 60 N. H. 38. In that case it was found as a fact that the assignment was made without consideration and with fraudulent intent. There is a distinction between assignments of future earnings and…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Schofield v. McConnellMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1876
3Cited by2 opinions
- Dole v. FarwellSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1903
- Brookfield v. SawyerSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1895