Jordan Marsh Co. v. Hale
| Decision Date | 29 December 1914 |
| Parties | JORDAN MARSH CO. v. HALE et al. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Currier, Young & Pillsbury, of Boston (Samuel H. Pillsbury and Henry C. Tuttle, both of Boston, of counsel), for appellant.
A. H Read, of Boston, and C. A. Mendall, of Melrose, for appellees.
The only question in this case is whether the Old Colony Trust Company is to be charged as trustee of Walter S. Hale, one of the principal defendants. The trustee, in answer to interrogatories filed by the plaintiff, stated that at the time of the service of the writ there were no accounts on its books in the name of either of the principal defendants. In further answer to interrogatories the trustee stated that at the time of the service of the writ upon it there was an account upon its books in the name of 'Walter S. Hale Agent,' and that this account was drawn upon by checks signed 'Walter S. Hale, Agent.' The record discloses no other evidence as to the ownership of the deposit.
In a trustee process, the burden of proof is upon the plaintiff to show that the trustee has in his possession goods, effects or credits of the principal defendant. The trustee is to be charged or not, as the evidence predominates; and if it is not affirmatively proved by his answers or by other evidence that he is chargeable, then he is to be discharged. The name of the principal defendant set forth in the writ is not the name in which the deposit stands upon the books of the trustee. Terry v. Sisson, 125 Mass. 560.
The answers of the trustee will not necessarily conclude either the plaintiff or a claimant to the fund, and while the plaintiff cannot contradict or impeach the trustee, he has the right to examine him from time to time upon interrogatories, to elicit facts to determine the ownership of the fund. This question involves inferences and conclusions from the facts and of law.
The trustee in its answer affirms that it has no funds in its possession belonging to the principal defendants, but that it has a deposit standing in the name of 'Walter S. Hale, Agent.' Upon this record, it would appear prima facie that the deposit did not belong to the principal defendant but that it is the property of an undisclosed principal. Whether there is such a principal, or whether the deposit was so made by the defendant Hale (as the plaintiff contends) to protect the fund from attachment by his creditors cannot be determined upon the record. There is no evidence of collusion on the part of the trustee, or that it is not acting in good faith.
We are of opinion that, upon the answers of the trustee, without other evidence, the plaintiff has failed to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jordan Marsh Co. v. Hale
...219 Mass. 495107 N.E. 357JORDAN MARSH CO.v.HALE et al.Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.Dec. 29, Appeal from Superior Court, Suffolk County. Action by the Jordan Marsh Company against Walter S. Hale and another, in which the Old Colony Trust Company was summoned as trustee. F......