Somers v. Keliher

115 Mass. 165, 1874 Mass. LEXIS 181
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court·Decided June 17, 1874·Published·Cited by 13 cases

Opinion

Ames, J.

It was decided in Jenks v. Dyer, 102 Mass. 235, that the word “ earnings,” as used in the St. of 1865, c. 43, § 2, has a more extensive signification than the word “ wages.” The statute applies to the compensation for services; a term which involves more than the mere labor of the person by whom they are rendered, and may include expenditures as well as labor. What the principal defendant in the original suit undertook to do under his contract was, not to sell certain lumber and other building materials to Keliher, and to perform certain labor upon them, but to render the specific service of building a house for him, furnishing all the labor and materials therefor, at an agreed price for the entire service. By rendering that service, he would earn, and become entitled to, certain periodical payments. But the final payment, which is the only one involved in this suit, he cannot be said to have earned and become entitled to by the terms of the contract, until he should have completed his contract. As he had not done so at the date of the assignment, the earnings which he undertook to assign came within the description of future earnings. The assignment not having been recorded, it is invalid against the trustee process. Exceptions overruled.

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

Somers v. Keliher, 115 Mass. 165, 1874 Mass. LEXIS 181 (Mass. 1874).

115 Mass. 165 (Somers v. Keliher) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Caulley v. Caulley
806 S.W.2d 795 (Texas Supreme Court, 1991)
Oregon Willamette Lumber Corp v. Lincoln County
370 P.2d 422 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1962)
Jump v. Bernier
108 N.E. 1027 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1915)
State ex rel. Shea v. Billheimer
96 N.E. 801 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1911)
Meyer v. Livesley
107 P. 476 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1910)
In re O'Donnell
131 F. 150 (D. Massachusetts, 1904)
Chester v. McDonald
69 N.E. 1075 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1904)
Allen v. Mayers
69 N.E. 220 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1904)
Chapin v. Pike
68 N.E. 42 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1903)
Tracy v. Waters
39 N.E. 190 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1895)
First National Bank v. Graham
3 Willson 561 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1889)
Kendall v. Kingsley
120 Mass. 94 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1876)