Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

233 Mass. 481

Bartlett v. Moore

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided September 10, 1919

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · decided 1919-09-10

<p>Attachment, Of real estate.</p> <p>Where the plaintiff in an action at law has attached on mesne process an undivided share of the defendant in certain real estate as an heir at law of his mother, and after the attachment and before judgment the administrator of the mother’s „ estate sells the real estate for the payment of debts, retaining a surplus in which the defendant’s share is more than sufficient to satisfy the plaintiff’s claim, and where the plaintiff obtains judgment and immediately notifies the administrator of his lien and demands payment of his claim from the proceeds of the sale and within thirty days after the judgment brings a suit in equity to enforce his rights, the plaintiff has established his lien and is entitled to payment out of the proceeds of the sale in the hands of the administrator as against a creditor claiming under a subsequent attachment.</p>

Relies on Wiggin v. Heywood · Mechanics' Savings Bank v. Waite · Brown v. Floersheim Mercantile Co.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1919-09-10

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently December 1995

4 state decisions

20191919201930194019501960197019801990decided

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 →

Braley, J.

¶1The respective answers having admitted all the plaintiff’s allegations, the replications are to be treated as waived, leaving for decision the questions, whether under the original bill complete relief should be given, and, if so, whether the cross bill can be maintained as to the remaining defendants. By the sale for the payment of debts of the intestate the real property, of which the defendant Moore as heir at law was seized of one undivided third part, was converted, and his fractional interest in the land entitles him to the same proportional share in the surplus in the administrator’s possession and control.

¶2The plaintiff, a creditor, having attached on mesne process all the heirs’ right, title and interest in an action at law on which judgment was duly rendered, and having within thirty days thereafter brought the present bill to enforce his rights, the lien of the attachment on the debtor’s share of the proceeds, which is more than enough to satisfy the judgment, although changed in form never has been dissolved and can be enforced in equity. R. L. c. 167, §§ 38, 55. Wiggin v. Heywood, 118 Mass. 514. Hill v. Hill, 196 Mass. 509, 518. R. L. c. 148, § 9.

¶3The lien thus established having been prior to any rights acquired under the attachment by trustee process of the plaintiff company in the cross bill, no case for affirmative relief in any form is made out against the plaintiff in the original bill. Story, Eq. Pl. §§ 389, 392. Slater v. Cobb, 153 Mass. 22. The prayers for relief against the defendant Moore and the defendant Folsom, the administrator summoned as trustee, cannot be granted. The company not .only has obtained judgment and execution against the debtor,' but on scire facias judgment against the *485trustee has been entered for the amount of the judgment with costs of suit. R. L. 189, §§ 20, 45. Mechanics’ Savings Bank v. Waite, 150 Mass. 234. Brown v. Floersheim Mercantile Co. 206 Mass. 373, 376.

¶4The result is that a decree is to be entered dismissing the cross bill and ordering that the plaintiff in the original bill is entitled to the amount of his judgment with interest and costs.

¶5 Ordered accordingly.

/233/mass/481 · .json · Public domain