Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

150 Mass. 524

Handy v. Tracy

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided January 3, 1890

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · decided 1890-01-03

Contract by Albert D. Handy and John A. Lincoln, co-partners doing business under the name of Handy and Lincoln, against Johanna Tracy, administratrix of the estate of Patrick Tracy, upon two promissory notes, one dated April 16, 1885, for $200, and the other dated August 2, 1885, for $100, signed by the intestate, and payable to the order of Handy and Lincoln', one in one month from date and the other on demand, with interest at the rate of four and five per cent per month.

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently August 1898

1 state decisions

Relies on Lamprey v. Mason · King v. Bird

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1890-01-03

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

C. Allen, J.

¶1None of the property included in the mortgage, except the horse, belonged to Patrick Tracy; and Johanna Tracy brought an action and recovered judgment against Lincoln for taking the same upon the mortgage. Lincoln acted for himself and his co-plaintiff in so doing. The record of this judgment was put in evidence without objection. The apparent payment of the plaintiffs’ claim by the foreclosure was to this extent no real payment, because the property taken (except the horse) did not belong to the mortgagor, and because the partner who took it was responsible to the true owner. This apparent payment therefore goes for nothing, and the rights of the parties are the same as if this property had not been taken, and the interest at the exorbitant rates promised is not cut off. Lamprey v. Mason, 148 Mass. 231. The fact that Johanna Tracy had not actually recovered her judgment at the time this action was brought is immaterial. The important facts are, that Patrick Tracy was not the owner of the property, and that she was, and that she was asserting her paramount claim to the same, and was entitled to do so ; and these facts were conceded at the trial. Whitney v. Willard, 13 Gray, 203. Her right being conceded, it is not material that she had not actually recovered judgment. Lincoln might well have yielded without litigation to a claim which he could not resist. Whitney v. Dinsmore, 6 Cush. 124, 128. King v. Bird, 148 Mass. 572.

¶2Kxeeptions overruled.

/150/mass/524 · .json · Public domain