Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

39 N.H. 468

Philbrick v. Philbrick

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

Decided December 15, 1859

Supreme Court of New Hampshire · decided 1859-12-15

Foreign Attachment. The following facts appeared from the disclosures of the trustees: July 25, 1853, the trustee, Edward Philbrick, the father of the principal defendant, being aged, and indebted to the amount of about $500, and having little property beside a lot of land in Concord, applied to the defendant (who then was, and ever since has been, a resident and citizen of the State of Illinois,) for assistance.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1859-12-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently March 1991

2 state decisions

10185918601870188018901900191019201930194019501960197019801990decided

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 →

Dob, J.*

¶1The case does not show that the defendant has assented to the arrangement made by Edward Phil-brick and the school district, or that Edward was discharged from his liability to the defendant. If the district should pay Edward the whole of the $2,000, the defendant would have no claim on the district. The original contract between the defendant and Edward is not abandoned, the defendant and the district have not become parties to a new contract, and the district is not liable as trustee.

¶2'It is objected by Edward Philbrick, the other trustee, that any law by which he should be charged would be *474unconstitutional, as impairing the obligation of contracts, The obligation of contracts would be affected as much by taking any other property out of a trustee’s hands, where the property is held by the trustee under a contract not by its express terms to be performed in this State, as by taking the money due on these notes. The doctrine contended for would exempt from attachment and execution all property of .non-residents, so held in-this State. If this were a proceeding to discharge a trustee from a debt due to the defendant on payment of part of that debt, it would virtually be a process under an insolvent law, and the residence of the defendant would, under some circumstances, be material. But the trustee statute merely provides how a debtor’s property may be attached and appropriated towards the payment of his debts in cases where, the property being in the possession of third persons, it would be inconvenient, difficult or impossible, to reach it by an ordinary attachment or levy of execution. The statute does not in the least impair the obligation of the trustee to pay his debt; it only directs to whom he shall pay it — -that he shall pay it to a creditor of the defendant, without diminishing the defendant’s estate otherwise than by costs which attend all attachments.

¶3Edward Philbrick is chargeable, as trustee, for the balance due on the notes.

¶4Union School District discharged — Edward Philbrick charged.

¶5 IWler and Bellows, J.T., did not sit.

/39/nh/468 · .json · Public domain