TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Foster v. Lowell

Joseph Foster & Al., Assignees of James Andrews a Bankrupt, versus John Lowell, Esq.

Foster v. Lowell, 4 Mass. 308 (1808)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
March 15, 1808
Judges
Sedgwick
Citations
4 Mass. 308
Headnotes
Where money belonging to A is in the hands of B, who also held a demand in favor of a creditor against A, with directions to make an attachment of A’s property, it was agreed between A and B that B should retain the money for the use of A’s creditor, and that B should cause A’s property to be attached, and that this agreement should be reduced to writing: this was not done, and A becoming bankrupt, his assignees recovered the money of B in an action for money had and received.
Summary
Assumpsit for money had and received. Upon the trial of the cause before Parker, J., at the last November term in this county, the following facts were in evidence, as appears from the judge’s report. The defendant was assignee of the estate, &c., of two bankrupts, viz., Ebenezer Lewis and Elijah Williams, on which estates two dividends were declared, one on the eighth of July, 1802, and the other on the twelfth of September, 1803. James Andrews was a creditor to both estates, and the dividends belonging to him in Mr. Lowell’s hands, amounted to 364 dollars 34 cents, for which sum a verdict was rendered in this case. In January, 1803, a commission of bankruptcy issued against said Andrews, on an act of bankruptcy committed after the first order of dividend above-mentioned, and the present plaintiffs were duly appointed his assignees, and an assignment of all his estate, effects, &c., was duly made by the commissioners to them. Before the bankruptcy of Andrews, and before said first dividend was declared, there was placed in the hands of Mr. Lowell, a demand in favor of the Salem Marine Insurance Company, against said Andrews, for collection ; upon which demand a writ was issued and given to an officer, with directions to obtain security. When the officer called to make service of the writ, which was on the fifth of April, 1802, Andrews went to Mr. Lowell, and agreed with him, that the money whi h should come into his hands, as assignee to Lewis and Williams, belonging to Andrews, should be retained by Lowell, on account of this demand of the Salem Insurance Company, and further agreed to assign over to said Company, or to said Lowell, for their benefit, his claims on said estates, of which said Lowell was assignee, as aforesaid. * No attachment was made in the suit against said [*309] Andrews, but the action against him was entered and prosecuted until his bankruptcy. No assignment was executed by Andrews; and no further transactions appear to have taken place between him and said Lowell. On the tenth of January, 1804, the said Insurance Company, by Jacob Ashton, Esq., their president, proved their debt against said Andrews, before the commissioners of bankruptcy, having deducted 320 dollars, as the probable amount of the money in Mr. Lowell’s hands, from the estates aforesaid. Mr. Lowell being then in Europe, it did not appear that the company knew the amount of the said dividends, or of the net proceeds thereof, which might belong to them. If, upon these facts, the plaintiffs ought to recover the amount of both dividends, judgment to be rendered according to the verdict; if they ought to recover any part, then the verdict to be altered accordingly ; if they are not entitled to recover any thing, a general verdict to be entered for the defendant, and judgment for his costs.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Sedgwick

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

The opinion of the Court (excepting the Chief Justice, who, having been of counsel, did not sit in the cause) was afterwards delivered by Sedgwick, J.

[After reciting the facts, as before detailed.] The question arising in this case is between the creditors of Andrews generally, and one of them, the Salem Insurance Company, Who is entitled to the money ?

* We have been disposed, if we could have done it [*312] consistently with the rules of law, to give validity to the agreement between Andrews and the defendant; because we be *276 lieve it was a fair and honest transaction. But when we consider that the parties themselves, at the time of the agreement, contemplated an assignment which was never made, as the completion and evidence of their contract; that no memorandum in writing was at the time made of the agreement; that neither of the dividends had ever been made or credited by the defendant to the insurance company, although one of them had been received by him before Andrews became a bankrupt, —we think that to sanction such loose, incomplete, and unexecuted contracts, in the cases of bankruptcy and insolvency, would authorize practices extremely mischievous. We think, therefore, that the verdict must stand.

Judgment according to the verdict, (a)

[It does not appear, from the facts reported, that the agreement was intended to depend upon any memorandum of it in writing. And certainly no writing was necessary to give such an agreement validity. — Curtis vs. Morris, 8 Pick. 280.—Jones vs Witter, 13 Mass. Rep. 304 . — Dunn vs. Snell, 15 Mass. Rep. 485 . — Titcomb vs. Thomas, 5 Gr. 282 . — Clark vs. Rogers, 2 Gr. 147 . — Ford vs. Stuart, 19 Johns. 342 . — Quinn vs. Marblehead Insurance Company, 10 Mass. Rep. 476 . — Briggs vs. Dorr 19 Johns 95. —Prescott vs. Hall. 17 Johns. 284 . — Robbins vs. Bacon, 3 Gr. 349.—Vose vs. Handy, 2 Gr. 342 . — Onion vs. Paul, 1 Har. & Johns. 114. — Mowry vs. Todd, 12 Mass. Rep. 284 . — Ed.]

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1860–1861: 11912–1913: 118602026peak 1860 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Noyes v. Brown33 Vt. 431 (1860)
  2. Dudley v. Nickerson101 N.E. 465 (Mass. 1913)

Most recent

  1. Dudley v. Nickerson101 N.E. 465 (Mass. 1913)
  2. Noyes v. Brown33 Vt. 431 (1860)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 7

DepthCaseCited by
Jones v. Witter, 13 Mass. 304 (1816) 60
Quiner v. Marblehead Soc. Ins., 10 Mass. 476 (1813) 25
Prescott v. Hull, 17 Johns. 284 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1820) 19
Ford v. Stuart, 19 Johns. 342 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1822) 16
Partridge v. Gordon, 15 Mass. 485 (1819) 11
Sutter v. Dutch Church, 3 Grant 336 (1862) 7
Brown v. Nye, 12 Mass. 284 (1815) 1

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list