Black v. Buckingham

• Decision Date: 03 July 1899
• Citation: 174 Mass. 102,54 N.E. 494
• Parties: BLACK v. BUCKINGHAM.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

174 Mass. 102

54 N.E. 494

BLACK v. BUCKINGHAM.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Middlesex.

July 3, 1899

It appeared that the plaintiff was a manufacturer of snowplows in Lexington, and that the defendant, who was a manufacturer of malleable iron in Worcester, had several times made the iron parts for the plaintiff's machines. Court records were put in evidence showing that, before the time of the trial of this case, this defendant had recovered judgment for the sum of $710.50 in the county of Worcester in the action in which this plaintiff was arrested, which sum was substantially less than the amount claimed by the plaintiff to be due him. The defendant's evidence tended to show that the plaintiff had been given time for three years or more on his bill for iron parts of snowplows; that the plaintiff came to the defendant's place of business in Worcester on Saturday, September 19, 1896, at about 9 o'clock in the morning, and informed the defendant's bookkeeper that he had sold out his business in Lexington and was going West; that he would like to see Mr. Buckingham that he had so much money to give him to settle the account and had not much time to talk about it. The defendant's evidence tended to show, further, that Mr. Buckingham (the defendant) was not in his office, and that the bookkeeper telephoned to him at his home, repeating to him what the plaintiff had just said; that thereupon the defendant went to his counsel, related to him all the foregoing facts, and was informed by him that Black could be detained if he was going to leave the state without paying the account; that in the meantime the plaintiff had gone out of the defendant's office, but came back, and waited for the defendant; that thereafter at about 10 o'clock in the same morning, the defendant went to his place of business, and there found the plaintiff, Black; that Black offered him $250 to settle his bill, and said that he had sold out his business, and was going West, and that Buckingham had better accept this, as it was more than he would otherwise get; that the defendant refused to accept this offer, and the plaintiff left the defendant's place of business; that thereupon the bookkeeper took the account against Black to the defendant's counsel, and stated to him what had just taken place between Black and Buckingham, as it is above stated; that the attorney made out the proper papers for causing the arrest of Black upon mesne process, and made the necessary affidavit before a magistrate, without the presence of either the defendant, the bookkeeper, or any other person; that the attorney put the papers into the hands of a deputy sheriff, who arrested the plaintiff at the railroad station; that the plaintiff was informed by the officer that he could go before a magistrate and recognize, or take the oath that he did not intend to leave the state, or he could settle the bill. The officer testified that he told the plaintiff he was informed that he (the plaintiff) was going to leave the state; and he further testified that the plaintiff replied that he had said he was going West, but that he meant the western part of the state. It appeared that the plaintiff went with the officer to the office of the defendant, and had a further conversation about the bill, and then was taken, at his own request, to see counsel; then to the telegraph office, where, at about noon on the day when he was arrested, he sent a message to Stoneham, Mass., to get a surety to recognize for him; then he was taken to the central district court of Worcester, where he was represented by counsel, to get a time fixed for a hearing, but the justice of that court was busy holding the session, and did not appoint a time. There was evidence tending to show that the plaintiff could have given notice to the defendant or his attorney; that both of them were in town on that Saturday afternoon; that he could have had notice issued by other magistrates than the one before whom he was taken; that no effort was made to apply to another magistrate, and the officer, having waited until 5 o'clock in the afternoon for the surety, took the plaintiff to jail. It appeared that the surety arrived in Worcester that same evening, but could not be admitted to the jail until noon on the next day (Sunday), when the plaintiff was released; that on the following day, September 21, 1896, at 8 o'clock in the morning, the plaintiff gave notice, returnable one hour from that time, that he desired to take the oath that he did not intend to leave the state; that, upon his statement that he did not in fact intend to leave the state, he was released. The defendant's evidence tended to show that the plaintiff testified before the magistrate that he meant the western part of the state when he said he was going West. The plaintiff denied that he said at any time he was going West, and testified that he said he was going to Westboro, and it was not denied that during the second interview with the bookkeeper, before the defendant had come in, the plaintiff said he was going to Westboro, and it was not denied that the bookkeeper examined the time tables for trains going east from Worcester at the plaintiff's request. The plaintiff further testified that the account between himself and Buckingham was in dispute; that he had several times previous to September 19th called upon and written to the defendant about the settlement of the account; that he (the plaintiff), during most of the time between the time the debt was contracted and the arrest, had been in business in Lexington, and was the owner of considerable real and personal property. It appeared from the plaintiff's evidence that he had transferred his business at Lexington to a firm in Stoneham, which was in the same business, and of which he became a member; that his personal property was mainly in the business of said firm when he was arrested in Worcester. The plaintiff, testifying in his own behalf, on cross-examination admitted that on September 21st, the day when he was released from arrest at Worcester, he mortgaged all his real estate for its full assessed valuation. The defendant offered to show that said mortgage was not given for a present consideration, and was for a larger sum than the indebtedness of the plaintiff to the mortgagee, for the purpose, as claimed, of showing that said mortgage was fraudulent. The court, upon objection, excluded the evidence, and the defendant excepted thereto. The defendant's counsel, in opening his case, was stopped by the court in referring to the fraudulent character of the mortgage of September 21st, and was directed to say nothing with reference to that transaction, to which the defendant duly excepted. The court also refused to allow reference to the fraudulent character of said mortgage in the defendant's closing argument to the jury, to which the defendant duly excepted.

The...