Bain v. Atkins

• Decision Date: 03 April 1902
• Parties: BAIN v. ATKINS et al.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

181 Mass. 240
63 N.E. 414

BAIN
v.
ATKINS et al.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

April 3, 1902.

Case reserved from supreme judicial court, Suffolk county; James M. Morton, Judge.

Suit by Bain against Atkins and another. Reserved case. Bill dismissed.

Walter [181 Mass. 242]B. Grant and Thos. H. Buttimer, for plaintiff.

Robt. W. Nason, Thos. W. Proctor, and Nathl. L. Foster, for defendants.

BARKER, J.

It is now settled by the findings and the agreed facts that when the plaintiff began this attempt to reach, in liquidation of his claim against Atkins, a supposed obligation to Atkins on the part of the Union Casualty & Surety Company, that obligation was no longer in existence. The bill was filed on January 19, 1898. Nine days before that date the supposed [181 Mass. 243]obligation, disputed by the company, had been ended by an actual payment of money then made by the company to Atkins on a settlement made in good faith on the part of both, and without notice to either of any claim on the part of the plaintiff in the obligation, or founded upon it. The settlement was not made for the purpose of enabling Atkins to avoid his liability to the plaintiff, nor of enabling the company to avoid any liability to the plaintiff. When it was made the company had no knowledge of Atkins' financial condition. The settlement is found to have been made as in the ordinary course between two parties, one of whom denied all liability, and wanted to settle for as little as it could without injuring its reputation for fair dealing with those who insured with it, and the other of whom wanted to get all he could, up to the full amount of his claim. Atkins put into his business the $3,000 which he received in the settlement, and, had it not been for the judgment of $7,000 afterwards recovered against him by the plaintiff in the action of tort for personal injuries then pending, Atkins could have gone on with his business. He went into bankruptcy in consequence of that judgment, and has paid nothing upon the judgment, and the plaintiff has been unable to collect the judgment, in whole or in part.

[63 N.E. 415]

We do not consider whether, if, when the bill was brought, the company had been under an existing obligation to indemnify Atkins against the plaintiff's demand, the latter could have compelled, in equity, the application of that obligation to the satisfaction of his claim against Atkins. The fact that when the plaintiff sought the aid of an equity court there was no such obligation is conclusive against the contention that there was an equity springing from such an obligation. Therefore the plaintiff is compelled to contend that the obligation of the company upon the happening of the accident constituted a fund for the benefit of the plaintiff, impressed with a trust for him; that such a trust fund could be paid to Atkins, if at all, only to reimburse him after he had satisfied his own liability to the plaintiff; and that the company's settlement with Atkins without the consent of the plaintiff was in the company's own wrong, and void as to the plaintiff. The...