Thompson v. Knapp

111 N.E. 792, 223 Mass. 277, 1916 Mass. LEXIS 944
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedMarch 3, 1916
StatusPublished
Cited by22 cases

This text of 111 N.E. 792 (Thompson v. Knapp) 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
Thompson v. Knapp, 111 N.E. 792, 223 Mass. 277, 1916 Mass. LEXIS 944 (Mass. 1916).

Opinion

De Courcy, J.

As security for the execution by him of a ten year lease from the Wamesit Power Company, and for the monthly payment of the rent, the plaintiff on June 6, 1898, deposited $3,000 with the defendant, as trustee; and the defendant in writing accepted the express trust.

The defendant deposited the money in a trust company in his own name as trustee. On June 20, 1908, when he paid to the plaintiff the sum of $2,000 from the fund, interest at the rate of two and one half per cent per annum compounded monthly had been credited to the account in the sum of $826.84. When the further sum of $1,000 was paid to the plaintiff, there was an additional credit on the bank account of $27.52 interest.

On these facts, found by the trial judge and not disputed, we have no occasion to consider whether the defendant would have been liable for a failure to invest the fund. He did invest it, and it has produced interest. And he held it, not as a mere bailee or stakeholder for a short period, but as an express trustee, and for [279]*279the ten years of the lease or longer. His legal liability was that of a trustee. Maverick Congregational Society v. Lovejoy, 6 Allen, 183. Maxwell v. Whieldon, 10 Cush. 221. The interest accruing to the fund was not his to dispose of, and must be accounted for to the plaintiff as owner. Davis v. National Life Ins. Co. 188 Mass. 299. Goodwin v. Massachusetts Loan & Trust Co. 152 Mass. 189, 203. 39 Cyc. 422, and cases cited.

The memorandum of the trial judge does not make it clear whether the defendant’s claim for compensation, set up in his amended answer, was passed upon. But as he does not argue this question in his brief and it does not seem to have been pressed at the trial, we assume that the claim either was disallowed or has been waived.

Decree affirmed.

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

Related

Pruitt v. KNIGHT PUBLISHING COMPANY
218 S.E.2d 876 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1975)
Alexander v. Peoples Ice Company
85 So. 2d 846 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1955)
Cook v. M. J. Walsh Boiler Scaling Co.
40 So. 2d 655 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1949)
Gagnon's Case
65 A.2d 6 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1949)
Notte v. Rutland Railroad Co.
28 A.2d 378 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1942)
Mages v. Alfred Brown, Inc.
193 A. 780 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1937)
McDaniel v. Eagle Coal Co.
43 P.2d 655 (Montana Supreme Court, 1935)
Marker v. Industrial Commission
37 P.2d 785 (Utah Supreme Court, 1934)
McDonald v. Treasurer of State of Idaho
16 P.2d 988 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1932)
Liptak v. Industrial Accident Commission
251 P. 635 (California Supreme Court, 1926)
American Mutual Liability Insurance v. Brock
135 S.E. 103 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1926)
Killisnoo Packing Co. v. Scott
14 F.2d 86 (Ninth Circuit, 1926)
Nease v. Hughes Stone Co.
1925 OK 713 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1925)
Knoxville Knitting Mills Co. v. Galyon
148 Tenn. 228 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1923)
Calumet Foundry & Machine Co. v. Mroz
137 N.E. 627 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1922)
Industrial Commission v. State Insurance Compensation Fund
203 P. 215 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1922)
McNeil v. Panhandle Lumber Co.
203 P. 1068 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1921)
Saddlemire v. American Bridge Co.
110 A. 63 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1920)
Jennings v. Mason City Sewer Pipe Co.
187 Iowa 967 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1919)
Loring v. Wise
115 N.E. 302 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1917)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
111 N.E. 792, 223 Mass. 277, 1916 Mass. LEXIS 944, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thompson-v-knapp-mass-1916.