McBride v. Little
| Decision Date | 23 June 1874 |
| Citation | 115 Mass. 308 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
| Parties | George McBride v. Henry S. Little & another |
Suffolk. Bill in equity for an injunction against Henry S. Little and James Brooks. The case was heard on bill and demurrer by Morton, J., who reserved it for the consideration of the full court. The facts of the case appear in the opinion of the court.
Demurrer sustained.
J. F Pickering & I. J. Cutter, for the defendant Little.
N Richardson, for the plaintiff, contended that when there is a composition, it is a fraud in any one creditor who is a party to sue the insolvent to collect the balance of his original claim, and the other creditors, or either of them, may sustain a bill to prevent it, and referred to Chit. Con (10th Am. ed.) 758, 759, and cases cited; Steinman v Magnus, 11 East, 390; Boothbey v. Sowden, 3 Camp. 175; Mackenzie v. Mackenzie, 16 Ves. 372; Cranley v. Hillary, 2 M. & S. 120.
This is a bill to enjoin the defendant Little from prosecuting to judgment a suit at law which he has commenced against the defendant Brooks, and in which a verdict has been rendered in Little's favor. The ground upon which the plaintiff seeks to maintain it is, that he advanced money to enable Brooks to settle with his creditors, who, including Little, agreed that they would discharge their debts against Brooks upon the receipt of thirty per cent. thereof; that Little held a note of four hundred dollars, which had been discounted, that the plaintiff paid Little the thirty per cent. to enable him to take up and surrender said note, and that Little took it up and did not surrender it, but commenced the suit thereon against Brooks which this bill seeks to enjoin. The bill does not allege that Brooks has not repaid the plaintiff all the advances made by him, and therefore fails to show that the plaintiff has any interest in the question whether Little should have a judgment against Brooks. But if the bill should be amended by adding this allegation, we are of opinion that it could not be maintained. If the plaintiff is a creditor of Brooks, this does not give him such an interest that he can enjoin a suit against Brooks. There is no allegation of collusion between Little and Brooks to defraud the creditors of the latter. The mere fact that a judgment in a suit brought against a debtor will lessen his ability to pay his other debts does not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Baxter v. St. Louis Transit Company
... ... fifty feet, at a distance of five or six feet from the north ... rail of the west-bound track. At this point there were some ... ruts or little holes in the street next to the curb, and they ... turned the wagon in toward the track to within four or five ... inches of the north rail, and in ... ...
-
Baxter v. St. Louis Transit Company
... ... evidence showing that plaintiff had any control over the ... driver, against the imputability of the negligence ... Little v. Hackett, 116 U.S. 366; Follman v. City ... of Mankato, 29 N.W. 317 (Minn.); Robinson v ... Railroad, 66 N.Y. 11 (23 Am. Rep. 1); 1 ... ...
-
Scott v. Kona Development Co., Ltd.
...in a court of law." Fuller v. Cadwell, 6 Allen 503, 505. To the same effect are: Ins. Co . v. Bailey, 13 Wall. 616; McBride v. Little, 115 Mass. 308; Slater v. Schwegler, 54 A. 937; York v. Murphy, 91 Me. 320; and Bulkeley v. Welch, 31 Conn. 339. Another contention is that the account invol......
-
Boston & M.R.R. v. D'Almeida
...them, is not by a separate bill in equity. In that connection the defendant relies of Fuller v. Caldwell, 6 Allen, 503;McBride v. Little, 115 Mass. 308, 310;Spaulding v. Backus, 122 Mass. 553, 554,23 Am. Rep. 391;Payson v. Lamson, 134 Mass. 593, 599,45 Am. Rep. 348;Worcester v. Lakeside Man......