Stillings v. Young

37 N.E. 175, 161 Mass. 287, 1894 Mass. LEXIS 176
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court·Decided May 16, 1894·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

Barker, J.

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

Stillings v. Young, 37 N.E. 175, 161 Mass. 287, 1894 Mass. LEXIS 176 (Mass. 1894).

37 N.E. 175 (Stillings v. Young) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Hersum v. Homsey
20 Mass. App. Dec. 74 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div., 1960)
Kolda v. National-Ben Franklin Fire Insurance
195 N.E. 331 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1935)
Battjes Fuel & Building Material Co. v. Milanowski
211 N.W. 27 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1926)
Badger Lumber Co. v. Stern
101 N.W. 1093 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1905)
Hym v. Tong
14 Haw. 300 (Hawaii Supreme Court, 1902)
Phillips v. Meagher
44 N.E. 136 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1896)