Adamian v. Hassanoff

• Decision Date: 22 September 1905
• Citation: 75 N.E. 126,189 Mass. 194
• Parties: ADAMIAN v. HASSANOFF.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

189 Mass. 194

75 N.E. 126

ADAMIAN v. HASSANOFF.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

September 22, 1905

COUNSEL

W. B Grant, for plaintiff.

David A. Ellis and Maurice D. Abrams, for respondent.

OPINION

KNOWLTON, C.J.

This is a bill in equity, brought under Rev. Laws, c. 159, § 3, cl 7, to reach and apply property of the defendant which cannot be reached to be attached or taken on execution in an action at law. The property was a quantity of oriental rugs in a storage warehouse, upon which there was a lien for import duties due the United States government and another lien for warehouse charges. Three actions at law had successively been brought against the defendant by other creditors, on each of which there had been an attempted attachment of the rugs by trustee process. The warehouse receipt for the goods was held in pledge by one of these plaintiffs. Probably because of obvious difficulties in sustaining the attachment, the plaintiff Bakshian on January 20, 1902, changed his action from an action at law to a suit in equity to establish an equitable lien in his behalf against the rugs of the defendant in the bonded warehouse, in which he prayed for a receiver to make payment of the duties and for the surrender to the receiver of the warehouse receipt them held by the plaintiff Bogigian as a pledgee. On January 31, 1902, by agreement of the parties a decree was entered restraining the defendant from disposing of the goods and transferring the suits brought by Bogigian and Manuel, respectively, to the equity side of the court, to be considered in connection with the suit in equity of Bakshian, with leave to amend their pleadings, and referring all of the cases to a master. In the suit of Manuel v. Hassanoff, the finding of the master was for the defendant, and that case was not further pressed. Afterwards, upon the failure of the defendant to file bonds to settle the claims of the other two plaintiffs, the court appointed a receiver to take possession of the goods and hold them, subject to the further order of the court, and the defendant was ordered to sign such papers as would enable the receiver to take possession of them and discharge them from the existing liens upon them. The court ordered the discharge of the trustees in the suits, and authorized the receiver to obtain a warehouse receipt for the goods in his name as receiver, and to transfer them to another warehouse, subject to the United States custom duties thereon, and to impound the warehouse receipts in the office of the clerk of the court. This having been done, the receiver was relieved from the obligation of giving a bond. Afterwards, upon applications of the defendant at different times, the defendant was permitted to withdraw the goods upon his depositing in the office of the clerk sums amounting in the aggregate to $2,300, to be held to satisfy any judgment obtained against him in the cases of Bakshian and Bogigian against him, and also to satisfy any judgment obtained by this plaintiff, Adamian, if it should be determined that he is entitled to share in the goods or the money substituted for them, and to satisfy the charges of the receiver and of the defendant's counsel. The suit of this plaintiff was brought after the appointment of the receiver and the impounding of the receipt, but before the deposit of the money. On February 8, 1904, an order was made that this case be heard in connection with the other cases. The question before us arises upon an appeal from a decree, afterwards entered, sustaining the defendant's demurrer and dismissing the bill.

The provision of Rev. Laws, c. 159, § 3, cl. 7, is very broad and inclusive as to the property which may be reached by this equitable process. There is no doubt that at the time of the filing of this...