Jones v. Tilton

• Decision Date: 18 June 1885
• Citation: 139 Mass. 418,1 N.E. 741
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
• Parties: Frederick Jones & another v. Charles H. Tilton & trustees

139 Mass. 418

1 N.E. 741

Frederick Jones & another v. Charles H. Tilton & trustees

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts

June 18, 1885

Argued March 4, 1885

Suffolk.

Trustee process. Edward L. Pickard was summoned, with others, as trustee of the principal defendant. His answers alleged the following facts: On November 5, 1883, the defendant, being unable to pay his debts in full, executed an indenture, by which he assigned to Pickard, one of his creditors, all his real and personal property, in trust, first, to convey to an assignee in insolvency, if the defendant should be adjudged insolvent, all the property in this Commonwealth to which such assignee would have been entitled if the assignment to Pickard had not been made second, to convert said property into money, and apply the proceeds first to the payment of the defendant's debts preferred under the Pub. Sts. c 157, and then to pay the balance equally and ratably, without preference or priority, upon all debts of the defendant existing at the date of the assignment, and to pay any balance remaining after payment of such debts to the defendant. On November 10, 1883, a meeting of creditors of the defendant, which had been called by Pickard, was held and such creditors, representing a large majority of the defendant's indebtedness, assented verbally to the assignment, and chose a committee to be consulted by Pickard in the discharge of his duties under the assignment. On December 18, 1883, Pickard, acting upon the advice of this committee, sold all the property which he held under the assignment in this Commonwealth for $ 50,000. On December 20 1883, the plaintiffs brought this action against the defendant, and summoned Pickard and others as trustees, and at the same time, filed a petition in insolvency against the defendant, upon the ground that the assignment to Pickard was fraudulent, and was made for the purpose of preferring certain creditors. When the plaintiffs' writ was served upon Pickard, he called upon them and explained to them the nature of the assignment, the reasons why it was made, and what had been done under it. The plaintiffs said the assignment was entirely satisfactory to them, but that they desired the amount due to them from the defendant to be settled and agreed upon before they assented to the assignment or discontinued their action and petition. On December 26, 1883, Pickard, the defendant, and the plaintiffs arrived at an adjustment of the plaintiffs' claim against the defendant, which was stated in the form of an account,...