Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

100 Mass. 124

Casey v. Davis

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided October 15, 1868

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · decided 1868-10-15

Contract against William D. Davis, Cyrus Harris and Stephen Harris, copartners, “ doing business at Uxbridge under the name and style of William D. Davis & Co., Cyrus T. Scott, agent,” to recover wages due to Casey for labor of himself and his minor children in the defendants’ mill. Writ dated May 22, 1867.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1868-10-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently February 1915

3 state decisions

10186818701880189019001910decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Chapman, C. J.

¶1The proceedings in the action brought by Fairbanks against Casey and Cyrus T. Scott as his trustee constitute no defence to this action. Scott is described “ of said Uxbridge, as he is the agent of William D. Davis, Cyrus Harris and Harris, all of the state of Rhode Island, doing business as partners under the name and style of William D. Davis & Co. at Uxbridge aforesaid by their agent.” Judgment was rendered in the, action, against Casey and against Scott as his trustee. This judgment did not affect these defendants, not being against the goods, effects or credits of Casey in their hands. Scott’s agency for them did not render him liable to the process; for the principal, not the agent, is the party to whom the goods, effects or credits are intrusted, and who is liable to the trustee process.

¶2Scott ought to have been discharged; but his being charged does not affect the rights or liabilities of Davis & Co. The assignment of Casey to Mowry four days afterwards, with notice thereof to Scott, who was the agent of Davis & Co., gave to Mowry the right to prosecute the present action in the name of Casey. The fact that Casey afterwards, when the execution was levied, consented to the payment of the funds to be applied *126on the writ is immaterial, because the rights of Howry had then accrued and Scott had notice of them.

¶3Judgment for the plaintiff.

/100/mass/124 · .json · Public domain