Harlow v. Bartlett

• Decision Date: 18 March 1902
• Citation: 52 A. 638,96 Me. 294
• Parties: HARLOW v. BARTLETT et al.
• Court: Maine Supreme Court

52 A. 638

96 Me. 294

HARLOW

v. BARTLETT et al.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

March 18, 1902.

(Official.)

Report from supreme judicial court, Penobscot county.

Action by William H. Harlow against Frank I. Bartlett and others. Judgment for claimants in trustee process, and case reported. Title of claimants sustained.

The question was whether the funds disclosed in the hands of the trustee, the city of Bangor, belonged to the claimants, under an assignment to them by the defendant, or to the plaintiff under his attachment.

Argued before WISWELL, C. J., and EMERY, WHITEHOUSE, STROUT, SAVAGE, and POWERS, JJ.

H. H. Patten, for plaintiff.

F. J. Martin, and H. M. Cook, for claimants.

WHITEHOUSE, J. This is a trustee process, in which the claimants, J. F. Woodman & Co., assert title to the fund disclosed by virtue of an instrument of the following tenor:

"Bangor, Oct 15, 1900. To Henry O. Pierce, City Treasurer: For value received, I agree to pay to J. F. Woodman & Co. what there may be due me now, and also the balance due me January 1st, 1901, from the city of Bangor for services as fireman. Frank I. Bartlett."

This instrument was duly recorded in the office of the city clerk of Bangor October 16, 1900. The two services of the trustee writ were made December 14 and December 31, 1900, respectively. A process of this kind, though in form an action at law, is in substance an equitable proceeding to determine the ownership of a fund in dispute, especially when a claimant has appeared, as in this case, and become a party to the suit Jenness v. Wharff, 87 Me. 307, 32 Atl. 908. "As between the plaintiff and claimant equitable considerations must prevail, so far as the nature of the process will admit" Haynes v. Thompson, 80 Me. 125, 13 Atl. 276.

In the case at bar it is not in controversy that at the time of the alleged assignment to the claimants the principal defendant was indebted to them in a sum equal to the amount disclosed by the trustee. There was in fact a valuable consideration for an assignment of the fund.

But the plaintiff contends that the paper of October 15, 1900, of the tenor above given, by force of which the claimants seek to establish their right to the fund, is simply a promissory note, which cannot, under any principle of law, operate as an assignment to the claimants.

It has been seen that the instrument is addressed to Henry O. Pierce, city treasurer, and that the defendant therein agrees to pay to the claimants the amount due "from the city of Bangor for services as fireman." The terms of the instrument itself conclusively negative the idea that it might have been Intended as an ordinary promissory note. The direction of the paper to the city treasurer, the express mention of the particular fund which was to be paid to the claimants, and the omission to make the instrument negotiable in form, disclose an obvious intention on the part of the defendant to effectuate a transfer to the claimants of the entire balance of his salary as fireman for the city of Bangor for 1900, and to appropriate the amount to the payment of his indebtedness to them. That this was the mutual intention of the parties is also evidenced by the fact that the instrument was promptly entered for record in the city clerk's office in accordance with section 6, c. Ill, Rev. St., which requires an assignment of wages to be so recorded.

Under such circumstances, it is clearly the duty of the court to allow the Intention of the parties to...