Boston & M. R. R. v. Wade

First Circuit

Boston & M. R. R. v. Wade

87 F. 792, 31 C.C.A. 324, 1898 U.S. App. LEXIS 2031

CourtCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit

DecidedMay 11, 1898

DocketNo. 217

StatusPublished

This text of 87 F. 792 (Boston & M. R. R. v. Wade) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the First Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Boston & M. R. R. v. Wade, 87 F. 792, 31 C.C.A. 324, 1898 U.S. App. LEXIS 2031 (1st Cir. 1898).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant’s admission of the possession of funds belonging to the Central Vermont Railroad Company was a sufficient basis for the action of the circuit court in charging the appellant as trustee. The defendant described in the original writ was “the Central Vermont Railroad Company, a corporation established under the laws of the state of Vermont.” The addition to this description of the words “and doing business under the name of the Ogdensburg Transit Company” cannot he regarded as sufficient to mislead the appellant as to the identity of the defendant, or to give rise to any substantial doubt that the Central Vermont Railroad Company was the sole defendant named in the writ. The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed, with the costs of this court to the appellee,

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

The appellant’s admission of the possession of funds belonging to the Central Vermont Railroad Company was a sufficient basis for the action of the circuit court in charging the appellant as trustee. The defendant described in the original writ was “the Central Vermont Railroad Company, a corporation established under the laws of the state of Vermont.” The addition to this description of the words “and doing business under the name of the Ogdensburg Transit Company” cannot he regarded as sufficient to mislead the appellant as to the identity of the defendant, or to give rise to any substantial doubt that the Central Vermont Railroad Company was the sole defendant named in the writ. The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed, with the costs of this court to the appellee,

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

87 F. 792, 31 C.C.A. 324, 1898 U.S. App. LEXIS 2031, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/boston-m-r-r-v-wade-ca1-1898.