Hersum v. Homsey

Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div.

Hersum v. Homsey

20 Mass. App. Dec. 74

CourtMassachusetts District Court, Appellate Division

DecidedAugust 12, 1960

DocketNo. 484888

StatusPublished

This text of 20 Mass. App. Dec. 74 (Hersum v. Homsey) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts District Court, Appellate Division primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hersum v. Homsey, 20 Mass. App. Dec. 74 (Mass. Ct. App. 1960).

Pincite

Opinions

Adlow, C. J.

Action of contract brought against Samuel Hornsey of Delaware by trustee writ dated June 5, 1958. The trustee answered that he had no goods, effects or credits of the defendant at the time of service, but that he did hold property owned by the defendant and another jointly. To the refusal of the court to charge the trustee on his answer the plaintiff brings this' report.

It appears that the defendant, Samuel Hornsey and his wife, Victorine Hornsey, were on June 4, 1958 joint owners of shares in the Pilgrim National Bank of Boston. On June 2, 1958 the trustee was appointed Liquidating Agent of this bank pursuant to a vote of the Board Directors recommending liquidation. At the same time the Trustee received sufficient funds to pay to each shareholder a liquidating dividend of $25.00 per share. At the time of service of the writ the Trustee had in his possession the liquidating dividend of Samuel and Victorine Hornsey.

On the above facts the ruling of the court was proper. In this Commonwealth it has long been settled that a joint debt cannot be severed and appropriated, in whole or in part, to discharge the several debt of one. Hawes [76]*76v. Waltham, 18 Pick. 451; Stillings v. Young, 161 Mass. 287, 288.

O’Connell & O’Connell of Boston, for the Plaintiff. Francis J. Bousquet, for the Defendant.

While it is true that the creditor’s right to reach the interest of a husband in an estate by the entirety has been recognized, this right is predicated on the fact that “statutes relating to the separate rights of married women have not changed the common law rights of the husband in such estates.” Raptes v. Pappas, 259 Mass. 37, 38.

In the instant cause the fund in issue is the joint property of the defendant and his wife. Being personal property it is in no manner affected by the marital status of the co-owners. Each has a present interest in the fund' held by the trustee. The obligation of the trustee is to both. Under the circumstances, it .cannot be said that the money was due to the defendant absolutely and without contingency. G. L. c. 246, §32 (4).

Report dismissed.

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

Adlow, C. J.

Action of contract brought against Samuel Hornsey of Delaware by trustee writ dated June 5, 1958. The trustee answered that he had no goods, effects or credits of the defendant at the time of service, but that he did hold property owned by the defendant and another jointly. To the refusal of the court to charge the trustee on his answer the plaintiff brings this' report.

It appears that the defendant, Samuel Hornsey and his wife, Victorine Hornsey, were on June 4, 1958 joint owners of shares in the Pilgrim National Bank of Boston. On June 2, 1958 the trustee was appointed Liquidating Agent of this bank pursuant to a vote of the Board Directors recommending liquidation. At the same time the Trustee received sufficient funds to pay to each shareholder a liquidating dividend of $25.00 per share. At the time of service of the writ the Trustee had in his possession the liquidating dividend of Samuel and Victorine Hornsey.

On the above facts the ruling of the court was proper. In this Commonwealth it has long been settled that a joint debt cannot be severed and appropriated, in whole or in part, to discharge the several debt of one. Hawes [76]*76v. Waltham, 18 Pick. 451; Stillings v. Young, 161 Mass. 287, 288.

O’Connell & O’Connell of Boston, for the Plaintiff. Francis J. Bousquet, for the Defendant.

While it is true that the creditor’s right to reach the interest of a husband in an estate by the entirety has been recognized, this right is predicated on the fact that “statutes relating to the separate rights of married women have not changed the common law rights of the husband in such estates.” Raptes v. Pappas, 259 Mass. 37, 38.

In the instant cause the fund in issue is the joint property of the defendant and his wife. Being personal property it is in no manner affected by the marital status of the co-owners. Each has a present interest in the fund' held by the trustee. The obligation of the trustee is to both. Under the circumstances, it .cannot be said that the money was due to the defendant absolutely and without contingency. G. L. c. 246, §32 (4).

Report dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

20 Mass. App. Dec. 74, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hersum-v-homsey-massdistctapp-1960.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack