Bennett v. Sweet

• Decision Date: 30 August 1898
• Citation: Bennett v. Sweet, 171 Mass. 600, 51 N.E. 183 (Mass. 1898)
• Parties: BENNETT et al. v. SWEET et al.
• Court: Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts

171 Mass. 600

51 N.E. 183

BENNETT et al. v. SWEET et al.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

August 30, 1898

COUNSEL

H.R. Bailey and W.R. Sears, for plaintiffs.

F Hutchinson, for defendants.

OPINION

FIELD C.J.

It appears that Sweet brought an action of tort against one Kimball, and obtained a verdict, but that no judgment has been entered on the verdict, although by a rescript from this court the superior court could enter judgment. The superior court has continued the case for judgment, and it remains so continued. See Sweet v. Kimball, 166 Mass. 332, 44 N.E. 243. The cause of action there alleged was that Kimball had procured the arrest of Sweet without right, and forced him to pay a sum of money for his release. The present suit is a bill in equity, brought by the partnership of Bennett, Rand & Co. against Sweet and his attorneys in Massachusetts, and against Kimball, to obtain the payment of a debt due to the partnership from Sweet, and it seeks to reach and apply the verdict in the action of Sweet against Kimball in satisfaction of this debt. Sweet is an inhabitant of Rhode Island, and has not been served with process within this commonwealth, but he has appeared specially by attorney, and has filed a motion to dismiss the bill, and also a plea to the jurisdiction. The plaintiffs traversed the plea, and after a hearing on evidence, the superior court dismissed the bill, with costs. The question of law which the case presents is whether the verdict in the action of Sweet against Kimball can be reached and applied in equity in satisfaction of the debt due from Sweet to the plaintiffs. We think that the gist of the cause of action in Sweet v. Kimball was an injury to the person, although by means of that injury Sweet was deprived of property. If one...