Kendall v. Kingsley
| Citation | 120 Mass. 94 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts |
| Decision Date | 17 March 1876 |
| Parties | Henry A. Kendall v. Gardner P. Kingsley & trustees |
Suffolk. Trustee process. The case was submitted to the Superior Court, and, after judgment discharging the trustees to this court, on appeal, on an agreed statement of facts in substance as follows:
F. L Toppan & Co. were sub-lessees of the defendant of a store in Boston, No. 778 Washington Street, and were summoned as trustees in this action September 24 and October 1, 1874. The answer of the alleged trustees disclosed funds of the defendant in their hands to the amount of $ 225, being the monthly installments of rent which became due from them to the defendant on September 1 and October 1, 1874. The defendant has been defaulted.
The defendant, on August 31, 1874, made the following assignment in writing, signed by him, to the claimant, George Morrill "I, Gardner P. Kingsley, in consideration of Geo. Morrill having signed a bond for me to dissolve an attachment, and of other indebtedness to him, hereby assign and set over all rents due and coming due to me until Oct. 1, 1874, from my tenants in Hotel Decatur and store 778 Washington Street, Boston, as security."
Morrill, on the day of the assignment, signed a bond with Kingsley to dissolve an attachment in a suit brought against Kingsley. At that time the defendant owed Morrill $ 300, and afterwards Morrill became liable for and paid $ 110, by reason of, and upon the bond referred to in said assignment, and no part of the defendant's indebtedness to him has ever been paid. The assignment was made for a valuable consideration, but never was recorded in the office of the city clerk of Boston, where the defendant resided, and the plaintiff had no knowledge of its existence until a short time before the claimant filed his claim.
Trustees discharged.
C. T. Russell, Jr., for the plaintiff.
G. Morrill, pro se.
The word "earnings," as used in the St. of 1865 c. 43, § 2, is not indeed limited to wages, but may include compensation for expenditures incurred or materials furnished, under one contract, together with work done or services rendered. Jenks v. Dyer, 102 Mass. 235. Somers v. Keliher, 115 Mass. 165. But it cannot, upon any construction, however liberal, include rents payable under an ordinary contract of lease, which requires no personal services on the part...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Birdzell v. Jorgenson
...Iron & Ry. Co., 70 Ga. 717;Consolidated Kansas City Smelting & Refining Co. v. Peterson, 8 Kan. App. 316, 55 Pac. 673;Kendall v. Kingsley, 120 Mass. 94, 95;Ryan v. State Bank of Nebraska, 10 Neb. 524, 7 N. W. 276. Even the few authorities which, under the state of facts presented, hold that......
-
State ex rel. Birdzell v. Jorgenson
...v. Cherokee Iron & R. Co. 70 Ga. 717; Consolidated Kansas City Smelting & Ref. Co. v. Peterson, 8 Kan.App. 316, 55 P. 673; Kendall v. Kingsley, 120 Mass. 94, 95; Ryan v. State Bank, 10 Neb. 524, 7 N.W. 276. Even the few authorities which, under the state of facts presented, hold that the wo......
-
Rainault v. Evarts
...upon this language the tenancy and each rental period began on the sixteenth of the month (Atkins v. Sleeper, 7 Allen, 487;Kendall v. Kingsley, 120 Mass. 94;Hunt v. Bassett, 269 Mass. 298, 303, 168 N.E. 783;Walker v. John Hancock Mutual Life Ins. Co., 167 Mass. 188, 45 N.E. 89; Fox v. Natha......
-
Conway & Nickerbocker v. Smith Mercantile Co.
...extends to the correlatives of the word. Ordinarily the word like "from" and "between" excludes the day to which it relates. Kendall v. Kingsley, 120 Mass. 94. The in parallel cases to the one at bar, are conflicting. See Webster v. French, 12 Ill. 301; Clark v. Ewing, 87 Ill. 344. In a str......