Stillings v. Young
This text of 37 N.E. 175 (Stillings v. Young) 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 exceptions must be sustained because the answer of the defendants, that the money owing from them to Turner was due to him and one Rideout as copartners, was one which the defendants could make, and which must be regarded as true. Pub. Sts. c. 183, § 53. Varian v. New England Mutual Accident Association, 156 Mass. 1, 3, and cases cited. Bostwick v. Bass, 99 Mass. 469. That the debt was due to Turner and Rideout jointly as copartners was not matter of abatement, to be pleaded by the alleged trustees in the original action. They were not chargeable as trustees of Turner in respect of the debt due to his copartnership. Hawes v. Waltham, 18 Pick. 451. Bulfinch v. Winchenbach, 3 Allen, 161.
Exceptions sustained.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
37 N.E. 175, 161 Mass. 287, 1894 Mass. LEXIS 176, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stillings-v-young-mass-1894.