Charles E. Gifford v. Catherine Rockett &Amp; Trustee
| Decision Date | 20 January 1877 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
| Parties | Charles E. Gifford v. Catherine Rockett & trustee |
Argued October 24, 1876
Bristol. Trustee process, begun in the Police Court of Fall River, in which the Fall River Print Works was summoned as trustee. The principal defendant and trustee were there defaulted, and James Featherstone appeared as claimant of the funds in the hands of the trustee, and filed a declaration to which was annexed an assignment to him, duly recorded, of the wages of the principal defendant due and to be due to her from the "Robeson Print Works, a corporation doing business in said Fall River."
At the trial in the Superior Court, before Wilkinson, J., on appeal without a jury, the claimant offered in evidence the assignment, and testified, that the business of the Fall River Print Works was conducted by one Robeson, as principal agent; that the Fall River Print Works was known as well by the name of the Robeson Print Works as by its corporate name and that the assignment was accepted by the Fall River Print Works, by some person in its employ who paid over money under it. To the admission of the assignment as evidence, and to the admission of the testimony, the plaintiff excepted.
It was in evidence on the part of the plaintiff, that the trustee was incorporated in 1848, under the corporate name of the Fall River Print Works, for the purpose of making cotton and woollen goods, and that there was another corporation incorporated in 1866, in Fall River, by the name of the Robeson Mills, for the same purpose.
The judge ruled that there was no variance between the claimant's declaration and his proof, and found, upon the evidence, for the claimant; and the trustee was discharged as to the amount of the claim of the claimant, and charged, upon its default, for the balance in its hands. The plaintiff alleged exceptions.
Exceptions overruled.
A. N. Lincoln, for the plaintiff.
H. K. Braley, for the claimant.
It appears that there is no corporation "doing business at said Fall River," which was incorporated under the name of the "Robeson Print Works." The evidence tended to show that the corporation upon which this process was served was known as well by that appellation as by its true corporate name. There is no question as to the identity of the fund which the principal defendant intended to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bridges v. Hart
...was complied with.' We think that the facts which could have been found in the cases at bar distinguish them from the cases of Gifford v. Rockett, 121 Mass. 431;Gillespie v. Rogers, 146 Mass. 610, 16 N.E. 711;Lancy v. Snow, 180 Mass. 411, 415, 62 N.E. 735; and Young v. Jewell, 201 Mass. 385......
-
Blanchard v. Stone's, Inc.
...a name other than the one designated in its charter, and is bound to persons who have dealt with it under such assumed name. Gifford v. Rockett, 121 Mass. 431.William Gilligan Co. v. Casey, 205 Mass. 26, 31, 91 N.E. 124;Associates Discount Corp. v. Haynes Garage, Inc., Mass., 24 N.E.2d 685.......
-
W. W. Britton, Inc. v. S. M. Hill Co.
...129, 168 N.E. 535. It is immaterial that the correct legal name of the defendant was not always used, if its identity appears. Gifford v. Rockett, 121 Mass. 431; William Gilligan Co. v. Casey, 205 Mass. 26, 31, 91 N.E. 124; Merrimac Chemical Co. v. Moore, 279 Mass. 147, 154-155, 181 N.E. 21......
-
Bridges v. Hart
... ... distinguish them from the cases of Gifford v ... Rockett, 121 Mass. 431, Gillespie v ... ...