Shuttlesworth v. Noyes

8 Mass. 229
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court·Decided October 15, 1811·Published·Cited by 13 cases

Opinion

* Sedgwick, J.,

said in substance, that the Court had a strong desire to protect this demand against attachments made by the creditors of the husband, if it could be done consistently with established principles of law; but that it was very clear that a note payable to a feme covert is legally payable to the husband, and the property vests absolutely in him. He alone, during his life, has power to enforce payment or discharge the demand; and after his death, it would go to his executor or administrator, and not to the wife. It was therefore the opinion of the Court, that this demand was well attached by this process, and that Downs must be adjudged to be the trustee of Noyes, the principal defendant.

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

Shuttlesworth v. Noyes, 8 Mass. 229 (Mass. 1811).

8 Mass. 229 (Shuttlesworth v. Noyes) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Riemenschneider v. Kalaehao
5 Haw. 550 (Hawaii Supreme Court, 1886)
Wingate v. Parsons
4 Del. Ch. 117 (Court of Chancery of Delaware, 1871)
Hockaday v. Sallee
26 Mo. 219 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1858)
Bayerque v. Haley
2 F. Cas. 1071 (U.S. Circuit Court, 1856)
Farley v. Blood
30 N.H. 354 (Superior Court of New Hampshire, 1854)
Peacock v. Pembroke
4 Md. 280 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1853)
Shirley v. Walker
31 Me. 541 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1850)
Poor v. Hazleton
15 N.H. 564 (Superior Court of New Hampshire, 1844)
Hayward v. Hayward
37 Mass. 517 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1838)
Holbrook v. Waters
36 Mass. 354 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1837)
Story v. Baird
14 N.J.L. 262 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1834)
Wintercast v. Smith
4 Rawle 177 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1833)
Commonwealth v. Manley
29 Mass. 173 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1831)