Wrigley v. Geyer
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
In this case, Geyer, the principal defendant, was defaulted upon the return of the writ. Whitney, the trustee, upon his examination, stated that he “ owed to said Geyer and his partner, James Coolc, at the time of the service of the writ upon him, the sum of ninety dollars and ninety-six cents, which, by his agreement with them, was to he paid in mason’s work and materials.” Upon this statement, the question before the Court was, whether Whitney was the trustee of Geyer.
1Opinion of the Court
Curia.
Whitney had no effects in his hands liable to be attached, by this process, as the effects of Geyer. A promise to perform labor for another to a certain amount is not a chose in action attachable until the promise be broken, after which the promisee is entitled to receive the agreed value of the labor in money. But from the answer, the labor, and not its value in money, was due to Geyer and his partner when the attachment was made.
Trustee discharged.
2Cited by2 opinions
- Weil v. TylerSupreme Court of Missouri · 1866
- Smith v. DavisWisconsin Supreme Court · 1853