Giles v. Ash
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Trustee process. Writ dated September 11, 1876. The defendant was defaulted. The Wamsutta Mills, summoned as trustee, admitted that, at the time of service upon it, there was in its hands the sum of $38.61, due the defendant.
Read the full summary
Trustee process. Writ dated September 11, 1876. The defendant was defaulted. The Wamsutta Mills, summoned as trustee, admitted that, at the time of service upon it, there was in its hands the sum of $38.61, due the defendant. James Boardman appeared as claimant of the funds in the hands of the trustee, by virtue of an assignment, under seal, dated July 5, 1876, signed by the defendant, and duly recorded, to “James Boardman, treasurer,” of the wages due and to be due to the defendant from the trustee until August 1,1877. At the trial in the Superior Court, before Aldrich, J., Board-man…
1Opinion of the CourtMorton, J.
The bill of exceptions shows that the wages of the principal defendant, which the plaintiff seeks to hold by the trustee process, were assigned, by an instrument under seal, to James Boardman, treasurer. The sole object of the assignment was to secure the corporation of which Boardman was treasurer for goods which it had previously sold, and which it might after-wards sell, to the defendant. Boardman acted in the transaction solely on behalf of the corporation. His assent was the assent *355of the corporation, if such assent was necessary to give the assignment validity as against attaching…
2Cited by3 opinions
- James v. City of NewtonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1886
- Steineck v. Haas-Baruch Co.California Court of Appeal · 1930
- Robinson v. McKennaSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 1898