Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

124 Mass. 264

Sullivan v. Langley

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · decided 1878-03-25

Trustee process. The writ, as originally sued out, was against James H. Langley and James F. Alderman, as principal defendants, and the… Held: was competent as having a bearing on the question whether the assignment to them was valid, or was intended to cover up the fund in the bank, and prevent its being held by the plaintiff; and that the knowledge of these facts by Richardson and Browne might be considered by the jury, in connection with other evidence in the case, in…

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently January 1880

1 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1878-03-25

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Gray, C. J.

¶1Upon the issue between the claimants and the plaintiff, the papers filed in the case were rightly admitted in evidence for the purpose stated in the judge’s ruling. The assignment to the claimants having been found by the jury to be invalid, it is immaterial when it was made. It must be assumed upon this record, and was admitted at the argument, that the firm of J. F. Alderman & Co. consisted of Alderman and Bristol. The effect of the attachment made before Bristol was a party to the suit need not be considered, because the attachment upon the special precept, issued after he had become a defendant, clearly held the fund in the possession of the trustee, unless defeated by an assignment in bankruptcy, of which there is no evidence before us. Sage v. Heller, ante, 213. It follows that the claimant’s exceptions must be overruled, and the

¶2Judgment charging the trustee affirmed.

/124/mass/264 · .json · Public domain