Lock v. Johnson

36 Me. 464
CourtSupreme Judicial Court of Maine
DecidedJuly 1, 1853
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 36 Me. 464 (Lock v. Johnson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Judicial Court of Maine primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Lock v. Johnson, 36 Me. 464 (Me. 1853).

Opinion

Hathaway, J. —

The plaintiff had been at work for the defendant for twelve dollars and fifty cents per month, and on the third day of May, 1852, they settled and found due to the plaintiff twelve dollars and seventeen cents, for which the defendant gave to the plaintiff his due bill not negotiable.

The action is assumpsit on an account annexed for one month’s labor, and also on the due bill which was given “ for the labor embraced in the account annexed.” On the fifth day of June, 1852, the defendant was summoned as the trustee of the plaintiff and appeared and disclosed his indebtedness for the amount of the due bill, and was charged as trustee. He made no disclosure concerning the consideration of the due bill. By R. S., c. 119, §. 63, it is provided that “ no person shall be adjudged trustee by reason of any amount due from him to the principal defendant, as wages for his personal labor, for a time not exceeding one month.”

The statute secures to the laborer his claim of payment for one month’s labor, and places it beyond the reach of his creditors; and his debtor cannot deprive him of it, by his neglect to disclose the whole matter, when summoned as his trustee.

That the trustee did not discharge himself was no fault of the plaintiff.

The defendant could not, by his own act or neglect, transfer the plaintiff’s claim to a thiid person.

The due bill was no payment for the labor; it was not negotiable.

As agreed by the parties, a default must be entered for the amount of the due bill and interest from the date of the writ.

Shepley, C. J., and Tenney, Rice and Appleton, J. J., concurred.

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

Related

Pullman Palace Car Co. v. Henderson
120 Ala. 103 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1897)
Drake v. Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Railway Co.
37 N.W. 70 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1888)
Mull v. Jones
33 Kan. 112 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1885)
Burlington & Missouri River Railroad v. Thompson
31 Kan. 180 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1884)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
36 Me. 464, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lock-v-johnson-me-1853.