Crosby v. Harrison

• Decision Date: 05 October 1874
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
• Parties: Daniel W. Crosby v. Thomas H. Harrison & others

116 Mass. 114

Daniel W. Crosby v. Thomas H. Harrison & others

Supreme Court of Massachusetts

October 5, 1874

[Syllabus Material]

Worcester. Contract against residents of another state commenced by trustee process in which Christopher Haskell was summoned as trustee. The writ was returnable at August term 1870 of the Superior Court. The return of the officer stated that he had attached certain goods as the property of the defendants, and that he had made no further service upon them, as they were not within his precinct and had not any last and usual place of abode within the Commonwealth. At December term, 1871, the defendants appeared specially and offered to prove the facts set forth in the following paper filed in the case, entitled "Defendants' motion to dismiss":

"And now come the defendants and move that said action be dismissed, because they say that said court has not jurisdiction of said cause or of said defendants, for the reason that they nor either of them were or ever have been residents of this Commonwealth, and that they nor either of them had at the time of the service of said writ or have ever had any attorney, agent or tenant within said Commonwealth and that no service of said writ hath ever been made upon them or either of them, or upon any agent, attorney or tenant of them the said defendants; and for the further reason that no effectual attachment hath ever been made upon their goods, estate, effects or credits in their own hands and possession, or in the hands and possession of any trustee of them within said Commonwealth, so as to give the court jurisdiction of said cause or to authorize said court to issue any order of notice to said defendants requiring them to appear before said court to answer to said action.

"And said defendants aver that Christopher Haskell, the trustee named in said writ, and Daniel W. Crosby, the plaintiff named in said writ, fraudulently conspired together to induce the said defendants to send merchandise, the property of said defendants, into this Commonwealth, so that the said plaintiff might cause the same to be attached in this suit then by said plaintiff intended to be brought, and also to intrust the same to said Haskell, so that said Haskell might be in said suit summoned as their trustee; and in the execution and carrying out of said conspiracy and fraud upon the said defendants the said Haskell pretended and represented to the defendants, then doing business in the city of New York, that he, said Haskell, wanted to buy certain goods of the defendants, to wit, similar goods to those described in the officer's return upon the writ in said action, and that he would pay for the same upon receipt thereof, and the defendants relying upon such representations, shipped to said Haskell the goods and merchandise aforesaid from New York aforesaid to Webster, in said county of Worcester, on or about June 14, 1870, and forwarded to said Haskell a bill of lading thereof by mail and thereupon, to wit, on or about said June 14, drew their draft on said Haskell for the amount of said bill of merchandise, payable to the order of themselves, which said draft they indorsed and delivered to the cashier of the Oxford National Bank, and which said draft was held by said cashier at the time of the service of the plaintiff's writ on said Haskell, and...