Meacham v. McCorbitt
This text of 43 Mass. 352 (Meacham v. McCorbitt) 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.
Opinion
The liability of Simpson to the principal defendants, at the time of the service of the trustee process, was contingent. He had a right to collect the money due on the policy, which, when collected, and after satisfying his own debt, would be the money of the defendants. Till collected, [353]*353he nad no money of the defendants ; and the right to collect it was a chose in action not attachable by the trustee process. Wood v. Partridge, 11 Mass. 488. We think he stood in no higher responsibility to the defendants, than the assignee of a chose ir action to the assignor, before the debt has been recovered. Lupton v. Cutter, 8 Pick. 298. Tucker v. Clisby, 12 Pick. 22. The validity of the attachment must depend upon the facts, as they existed at the time of the service of the trustee process ; the receipt of the money on the policy, afterwards, did not render the respondent liable as trustee.
Trustee discharged.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
43 Mass. 352, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/meacham-v-mccorbitt-mass-1841.