Jacobs v. Anderson

• Decision Date: 02 March 1923
• Citation: 244 Mass. 125,138 N.E. 314
• Parties: JACOBS v. ANDERSON et al.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

244 Mass. 125

138 N.E. 314

JACOBS

v.ANDERSON et al.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

March 2, 1923.

Appeal from Superior Court, Suffolk County; Hammond, Judge.

Suit by Philip W. Jacobs, as trustee in bankruptcy of Peter Gardules, against Michael Anderson and another. From interlocutory and final decrees granting insufficient relief, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

The bill in its original form alleged a partnership between defendants and the bankrupt and sought an accounting. The amended bill alleged in the alternative that the bankrupt, with intent to hinder, delay, and defraud his creditors, transferred to the defendants property worth more than $10,000, and that defendants conspired with the bankrupt to purchase merchandise from creditors with the intent of not paying for it, and that the bankrupt received the merchandise and turned it over to defendants, and defendants concealed it. The master found that the defendant Anderson was not a party to the alleged conspiracy, but that he had received merchandise of the value of $850 from the bankrupt, sold it, and retained the proceeds, and was liable only to that extent. Plaintiff's exceptions to the report were overruled, and the report confirmed.

Jacobs & Jacobs and Joseph B. Jacobs, all of Boston, for appellant.

RUGG, C. J.

[1] This is a suit in equity by the trustee in bankruptcy of Peter Gardules. It is founded on an alleged conspiracy between the bankrupt and the other defendants to cheat Boston merchants by procuring from them large amounts of clothing chiefly on credit, to sell the same quickly and cheaply from a store in Haverhill and not pay creditors. The case was referred to a master, who made a finding of the facts. No evidence is reported. Hence those findings must stand unless upon the face of the report they are mutually inconsistent or contradictory and plainly wrong. Glover v. Waltham-Landry Co., 235 Mass. 330, 334, 127 N. E. 420; First Baptist Society in Brookfield v. Dexter, 193 Mass. 187, 189, 79 N. E. 342.

[2] It has been found that the defendants Gardules and Yurelielionis conspired to defraud the merchants, but that the defendant Anderson, although the scheme was disclosed to him by Gardules, consulted an attorney and in accordance with his advice declined to become a party to it and a few days later was told that the other two defendants were going into the scheme. The master finds that Gardules and Yurelielionis conspired to defraud the Boston...