Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

121 Mass. 281

Douglas v. Simpson

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided November 21, 1876

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · decided 1876-11-21

<p>A debtor, by a deed of trust executed by himself and the assignee only, assigned his property for the benefit of his creditors, none of whom assented thereto. The assignee gave notice of his acceptance of the trust, and a portion of the creditors presented their claims, which exhausted the assets collected by the assignee. Other creditors attached by the trustee process a sum due the debtor, which was claimed by the assignee under the deed of trust. Held, in the absence of proof that the sum held by the trustee was necessary to pay the creditors who had elected to come in under the trust deed, that the sum in the hands of the trustee was liable to be taken by trustee process.</p>

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1876-11-21

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently April 1964

5 state decisions

201876188018901900191019201930194019501960decided

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 →

Endicott, J.

¶1It appears by the agreed statement .of facts, that the indenture of trust, entered into by the defendants and Booth, the claimant, for the benefit of the defendants’ creditors, was not assented to or executed by any of the creditors at the time it was made; that, after Booth had given notice of his acceptance of the trust, a portion of the creditors presented their claims, thereby assenting to the indenture ; and that Booth had paid out all the assets that had come into his hands.

¶2While, therefore, it appears that all the assets in the hands of Booth were exhausted by the creditors who had assented to the indenture, it does not appear that the claims of the creditors assenting were sufficient to exhaust the sum in the hands of the trustee in this action, which Booth contends he is entitled to receive. In other words, the agreed statement fails to show that the sum held by this trustee is necessary to pay the creditors who have elected to come in under the indenture of trust. For aught that appears, the assets actually received by Booth were sufficient to pay the claims of all the creditors assenting.

¶3It was said in Everett v. Walcott, 15 Pick. 94, 97: “ Where the debts of the assenting creditors amount to less than the trust fund, the assignment is held good pro tanto, and the residue of the assigned property is liable to attachment, either in the hands of the assignees, or, if uncollected, in the hands of the debtors of the assignors, or, if it remains in its original situation, by actual seizure.” In the case at bar, the plaintiffs did not assent to the assignment to Booth. Admitting that the money in the hands of Walsh, the trustee, is a portion of the property assigned to Booth by the indenture, yet, in the absence of proof that a sufficient number of creditors have assented to exhaust this sum, it is liable to be taken on trustee process.

¶4As this is decisive of the case, we have not considered the other question raised by the parties and argued at the bar, touch? ing the validity of the assignment, as against this plaintiff.

¶5Trustee charged.

/121/mass/281 · .json · Public domain