Casey v. Davis

100 Mass. 124
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedOctober 15, 1868
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 100 Mass. 124 (Casey v. Davis) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Casey v. Davis, 100 Mass. 124 (Mass. 1868).

Opinion

Chapman, C. J.

The proceedings in the action brought by Fairbanks against Casey and Cyrus T. Scott as his trustee constitute no defence to this action. Scott is described “ of said Uxbridge, as he is the agent of William D. Davis, Cyrus Harris and Harris, all of the state of Rhode Island, doing business as partners under the name and style of William D. Davis & Co. at Uxbridge aforesaid by their agent.” Judgment was rendered in the, action, against Casey and against Scott as his trustee. This judgment did not affect these defendants, not being against the goods, effects or credits of Casey in their hands. Scott’s agency for them did not render him liable to the process; for the principal, not the agent, is the party to whom the goods, effects or credits are intrusted, and who is liable to the trustee process.

Scott ought to have been discharged; but his being charged does not affect the rights or liabilities of Davis & Co. The assignment of Casey to Mowry four days afterwards, with notice thereof to Scott, who was the agent of Davis & Co., gave to Mowry the right to prosecute the present action in the name of Casey. The fact that Casey afterwards, when the execution was levied, consented to the payment of the funds to be applied [126]*126on the writ is immaterial, because the rights of Howry had then accrued and Scott had notice of them.

Judgment for the plaintiff.

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

Related

Koontz v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad
220 Mass. 285 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1915)
Balk v. . Harris
45 L.R.A. 257 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1899)
Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fé Railroad v. Maggard
6 Colo. App. 85 (Colorado Court of Appeals, 1895)
Northfield Knife Co. v. Shapleigh
24 Neb. 635 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1888)
Richardson v. Independent School-District No. 1
38 N.W. 553 (Supreme Court of Dakota, 1888)
Wright v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad
19 Neb. 175 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1886)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
100 Mass. 124, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/casey-v-davis-mass-1868.