Portland & Harpswell Steamboat Co. v. Locke

73 Me. 370, 1882 Me. LEXIS 54
CourtSupreme Judicial Court of Maine
DecidedMay 4, 1882
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 73 Me. 370 (Portland & Harpswell Steamboat Co. v. Locke) 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
Portland & Harpswell Steamboat Co. v. Locke, 73 Me. 370, 1882 Me. LEXIS 54 (Me. 1882).

Opinion

Walton, J.

We do not find it necessary to consider the technical objections made to the maintenance of this suit, for we are satisfied it cannot be maintained upon its merits. The bill states in substance that Charles Sawyer, at the time of his death, had on deposit in one of the banks in Portland, in his own name, and "upon his individual account,” $898.08 ; and that "said deposit included and covered” abalance of $559.35, held by said Sawyer in trust for the Portland and Harpswell Steamboat Company; and the prayer of the bill is that the defendant, as administrator upon said Sawyer’s estate, may be required to pay over said balance to the plaintiff for the benefit of said company. It is plain from these statements that the trust funds were not only deposited to the private and individual account of Sawyer, but that the funds had in some way become mixed with other funds belonging to him; for the balance claimed to be due from him to the company is considerably less than the amount remaining on deposit in the bank. The identity of the trust funds is therefore lost; and, in such a case, the cestui que trust can stand no better than other creditors. Goodell v. Buck, 67 Maine, 514.

Bill dismissed, with costs.

Appleton, C. J., Virgin, Libbey and Symonds, JJ.,. concurred.

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

Related

Cherry v. Territory of Oklahoma
1906 OK 49 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1906)
Ober & Sons Co. v. Cochran
45 S.E. 382 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1903)
In re Mulligan
116 F. 715 (D. Massachusetts, 1902)
Nonotuck Silk Co. v. Flanders
58 N.W. 383 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1894)
Richelieu Hotel Co. v. Miller
50 Ill. App. 390 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1893)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
73 Me. 370, 1882 Me. LEXIS 54, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/portland-harpswell-steamboat-co-v-locke-me-1882.