Choquette v. Ford
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Contract, originally brought in the Police Court of Holyoke, on an account annexed for $12.94 against two defendants as co-partners, doing business under the style of Ford Brothers, and the Deane Steam Pump Company as trustee.
Read the full summary
Contract, originally brought in the Police Court of Holyoke, on an account annexed for $12.94 against two defendants as co-partners, doing business under the style of Ford Brothers, and the Deane Steam Pump Company as trustee. Writ dated May 12, 1899. The trustee added to its answer the following statement: “ Said L. G. Ford was last paid by it [the trustee] before said May 12th on April 14, 1899; that there were two services upon it as trustee made previous to said May 12th and subsequent to said last payment of April 14, 1899, on a writ other than the one on which service was made on said…
1Opinion of the CourtMorton, J.
The question in this case relates to the trustee. It was charged in the Superior Court on its answer and judgment was entered against the defendants and it. The defendants appealed but the trustee did not. The only question which has been argued is whether the trustee should have been charged. We assume without deciding that the defendants can raise that question on their appeal. It is agreed and the declaration apparently shows that the plaintiff’s claim is not for necessaries.
It appeared that previous to the writ in suit another writ had been sued out by the plaintiff in which the defendant…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Hall v. HartwellMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1886
- Sullivan v. Hadley Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1893
3Cited by2 opinions
- Brady v. RoyceMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1902
- Plymouth Rock Transportation Corp. v. Saltman Bros. Inc.Massachusetts District Court, Appellate Division · 1957