Hopkins v. Ray

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Hopkins v. Ray

42 Mass. 79

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedMarch 15, 1840

StatusPublished

This text of 42 Mass. 79 (Hopkins v. Ray) 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

Hopkins v. Ray, 42 Mass. 79 (Mass. 1840).

Pincite

Opinion

Shaw, C. J.

The trustees disclose an assignment made to them, in 1837, by Isaiah C. Ray, the principal defendant, of a considerable amount of goods, in trust for certain creditors. This being made after the passage of the statute of 1836, c. 238, and not being made in conformity with that statute, would not be sufficient to enable them to hold the property against an attaching creditor. But the court are of opinion, that the property was not in an attachable condition. The trustees, in their answer, disclose the assignment, by which they were authorized to sell and dispose of the goods in such manner as they should think most advisable, within one year, and then close the sale at auction. Pursuant to this authority, they had sold the goods to [80]*80various individuals on credit, and taken notes, not due when the trustee process was served. The assignment, by force of the statute, was not void, but voidable, as against creditors. Before the intervention of any attachment, the trustees were authorized to sell the goods on credit, and having so sold them and taken notes, they were not personally responsible, either for the goods or for the proceeds, and therefore were not chargeable as trustees. Dickinson v. Strong Trustees, 4 Pick. 57.

Trustees discharged.

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

Shaw, C. J.

The trustees disclose an assignment made to them, in 1837, by Isaiah C. Ray, the principal defendant, of a considerable amount of goods, in trust for certain creditors. This being made after the passage of the statute of 1836, c. 238, and not being made in conformity with that statute, would not be sufficient to enable them to hold the property against an attaching creditor. But the court are of opinion, that the property was not in an attachable condition. The trustees, in their answer, disclose the assignment, by which they were authorized to sell and dispose of the goods in such manner as they should think most advisable, within one year, and then close the sale at auction. Pursuant to this authority, they had sold the goods to [80]*80various individuals on credit, and taken notes, not due when the trustee process was served. The assignment, by force of the statute, was not void, but voidable, as against creditors. Before the intervention of any attachment, the trustees were authorized to sell the goods on credit, and having so sold them and taken notes, they were not personally responsible, either for the goods or for the proceeds, and therefore were not chargeable as trustees. Dickinson v. Strong Trustees, 4 Pick. 57.

Trustees discharged.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

42 Mass. 79, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hopkins-v-ray-mass-1840.