TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Callaghan v. Pocasset Manufacturing Co.

Dennis Callaghan v. Pocasset Manufacturing Company

Callaghan v. Pocasset Mfg. Co., 119 Mass. 173 (1875)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
November 29, 1875
Judges
Devens
Citations
119 Mass. 1731875 Mass. LEXIS 107
Headnotes
If a day laborer works for a corporation under an agreement, by which the amount, to become due him monthly, is paid in advance to a third person, who is to account to the laborer for it at the end of each month, the corporation is not liable in a trustee process to a creditor of the laborer, although the third person to whom the money is paid is the treasurer of the corporation.
Summary
Scere facias upon a judgment recovered against the defendant in a trustee process in which it was summoned as trustee of Matthew Burke. In the Superior Court, interrogatories were filed to the defendant, and on its answers thereto it was discharged, and judgment ordered for the plaintiff for his costs only; and the plaintiff appealed to this court. The facts of the case appear in the opinion.

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

Opinion of the Court — Devens

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

Devens, J.

The answers of the defendant to the plaintiff’s interrogatories disclose a contract between it and Matthew Burke, by which Burke agreed to work as a day laborer in its employ, and by which it agreed to pay him monthly in advance. This advance payment was not made directly to Burke, but by his consent to a third person, who was the treasurer of the defendant corporation. It further appeared that in the early part of the month in which the writ was served the sum of $40 had been thus advanced by the defendant to such third person, and that, at the time of the service of the writ in the trustee process, Burke’s work had amounted during that month to the sum of $37.50, so that a small amount in excess of that actually due for work done had thus been paid by the defendant. Even if the amount of the $37.50 still remained in the hands of the third person, and had not actually been delivered over to Burke, there *174 was no existing liability of the defendant to him, nor any debt which could then or afterwards be the subject of a suit by him. A laborer, if he desires, may contract that his wages shall be paid in advance, and such payment, whether made directly to him, or to a third person at his request, discharges any liability which might otherwise exist on the part of those with whom he thus contracts, when the work is actually performed. Even if it is the duty of the person holding the money to pay it back to those from whom he received it, in case the workman should not perform the labor, or such part as would represent the labor unperformed, should it be only partially performed, this would not, at least in the absence of fraud, affect the case, as such an arrangement would not place the alleged trustee under any liability to the workman, or leave any of his goods, effects or credits in his hands.

Nor is the contract affected by the fact that the third person to whom the advance payment was made was also a servant of the alleged trustee ; its liability was not the less completely discharged, and it owed nothing to Burke for the labor performed by him. Judgment affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

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

1889: 11925: 11927: 118892026peak 1889 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Archer v. People's Savings Bank88 Ala. 249 (1889)
  2. Packard Motors Co. v. Tally103 So. 455 (Ala. 1925)
  3. Salyers Auto Co. v. DeVore217 N.W. 94 (Neb. 1927)

Most recent

  1. Salyers Auto Co. v. DeVore217 N.W. 94 (Neb. 1927)
  2. Packard Motors Co. v. Tally103 So. 455 (Ala. 1925)
  3. Archer v. People's Savings Bank88 Ala. 249 (1889)

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 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

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