Sebor v. Armstrong

4 Mass. 206
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedMarch 15, 1808
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 4 Mass. 206 (Sebor v. Armstrong) 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
Sebor v. Armstrong, 4 Mass. 206 (Mass. 1808).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

We are called upon to decide if Mr. Winthrop shall, upon the facts disclosed by him on his examination, be adjudged the trustee of Armstrong.

By the third section of the statute of 1794, c. 65, which gives this process, any person summoned as a trustee shall be so adjudged, unless he declare on oath that he had no goods, effects, or credits, of the principal, when the writ was served on him.

By the twelfth section it is provided, among other things, that no person shall be adjudged a trustee, on account of his having accepted any negotiable security.

[*208] *Mr. Winthrop, on his examination, declares that he had accepted a drought on him from one B. W. in favor of Armstrong, the principal, for 1800 dollars; and that, when the writ was served on him, he had not paid that drought, but had sufficient funds of B. W.’s in his hands. On this declaration there is no doubt but Mr. Winthrop is the trustee of Armstrong, he owing him 1800 dollars on an accepted drought. But in this declaration he adds [187]*187that he thinks the drought was payable to Armstrong or his order If the accepted drought was negotiable, Mr. Winthrop is protected by the twelfth section of the act above cited. But he must be positive as to this fact. He has had time to inquire, and he does not move the Court for leave to make any further declaration on this point. If the trustee, in whose knowledge the fact ought to be, is doubtful, the Court cannot make any presumption in his favor.

Mr. Winthrop must be adjudged the trustee of Armstrong.

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

Related

Chapman v. Dearman
181 S.W. 808 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1915)
Toothaker v. Allen
41 Me. 324 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1856)
Mason v. White
11 Barb. 173 (New York Supreme Court, 1851)
Bickford v. Boston & Lowell Railroad
38 Mass. 109 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1838)
Gordon v. Coolidge
10 F. Cas. 779 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Maine, 1833)
United States v. Langton
26 F. Cas. 862 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts, 1829)
Williams v. Reed
22 Mass. 480 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1827)
Webster v. Gage
2 Mass. 503 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1807)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
4 Mass. 206, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sebor-v-armstrong-mass-1808.