Foreign Attachment. Issue between the plaintiff and the claimants. Trial before Peaslee, J., at the November term, 1902, of the superior court. The claimants hold an assignment of the defendant’s wages, which the plaintiff seeks to avoid as fraudulent. The claimants are grocers, and being creditors of the defendant took an assignment of wages to become due him from the trustee for a term of months. The assignment Avas duly executed and recorded.
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1903-06-02
How this case has been cited
Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently January 1940
1 district · 3 state decisions
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.
¶1
It appears that the claimants took the assignment for a valid consideration, and that there was no fraud in fact. Under such circumstances, their knowledge that the defendant desired to prevent attachments of his future earnings by other creditors did not invalidate the assignment.
Fradd
v.
Charon,
69 N. H. 189.
¶2
So far as the assignment was for the support of the defendant and his family, it could not be declared fraudulent in law.
ProvenCher
v.
Brooks,
64 N. H. 479, 481.
¶3
When the trustee process is invoked, the plaintiff stands in the shoes of the principal defendant as respects charging the trustee, and can raise only such questions as are open to the defendant. He cannot raise the question of fraud in law.
Corning
v.
Records,
69 N. H. 390, 397, 398, and cases there cited.
