Haven v. Wentworth

2 N.H. 93
CourtSuperior Court of New Hampshire
DecidedSeptember 15, 1819
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 2 N.H. 93 (Haven v. Wentworth) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of New Hampshire primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Haven v. Wentworth, 2 N.H. 93 (N.H. Super. Ct. 1819).

Opinion

Woodbury, J.

delivered the opinion of the court.

Our statute in relation to trustees is a substantial transcript of a statute in Massachusetts on the same subject; and both of these statutes in many respects resemble the custom of London concerning foreign attachments and garnishees.! 1) . J . ? , , , . /

Hence the decisions under the above custom and under the Massachusetts statute have always been thought entitled to much weight in the construction of our own statute. Under them it has been held, that a person cannot be charged as a trustee for “ credits” or “ debts,” unless an absolute debt or liability exist against him in favor of the principal. Bac. [95]*95Ah.“ Custom of LondonA H. 1.—1 Rolle Ab. 551.—1 Mass. Rep. 471.—3 Mass. Rep. 33, 68.—11 Mass. Rep. 493.

(1) Wendell terai-1802- (2) 9 Mass. 261< 438— Sed. 14 Mass, Rep. m

For the principal could not recover of the supposed trustee a debt still contingent; and the creditor of the principal, possessing only his power, cannot have judgment, when no debt exists. s oh endum in presentí cm t futuro.

As this is an equitable proceeding, it has been contended, that the debt due from the trustee must be equitable as well as legal; but the soundness of this distinction need not be settled in the present case.(l)

In respect to “ goods and effects” in the hands of the trustee, it. has been held that he is not chargeable for them, unless they are the subject of attachment and execution, or unless a present right of action for them exists in favor of the principal.(2)

The application of these doctrines to the disclosure under consideration has, after some hesitancy, inclined us to an . . , . , . , , opinion, that trie trustee ougnt to be discharged.

The origin of the insurance association, the office held by the trustee, the form of taking the premium notes, the invariable usage and understanding as to the disposition of the notes, which was in itself reasonable, and had been recognized by the principal, all indicate, that the credits of each member on the agent’s books, were merely hypothetical and contingent. They were always subject to a deduction of all his premium notes returned, his proportion of the current expenses of the association, and the amount of his losses on policies subscribed in that office. No member would consider his interest in the apparent credit upon the books, as absolute ; he would rather regard it as a contingent fund, subject to be reduced, or even extinguished, according to the extent of the above deductions ; and consequently, the fund would be bound by the usage. 9 Mass. Rep. 155.— 10 do. 26.—11 do. 85.-7 do. 43.—13 John. 44.

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

Related

Forbes v. Boynton
313 A.2d 129 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1973)
Clement v. Clement
19 N.H. 460 (Superior Court of New Hampshire, 1849)
Kaley v. Abbot
14 N.H. 359 (Superior Court of New Hampshire, 1843)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2 N.H. 93, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/haven-v-wentworth-nhsuperct-1819.