Massachusetts National Bank v. Bullock

• Court: Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
• Citation: Massachusetts National Bank v. Bullock, 120 Mass. 86 (Mass. 1876)
• Decision Date: 11 March 1876
• Parties: Massachusetts National Bank v. Benjamin Bullock & others & trustees

120 Mass. 86

Massachusetts National Bank v. Benjamin Bullock & others & trustees

Supreme Court of Massachusetts

March 11, 1876

Argued March 8, 1876.

Suffolk. Trustee process. The case was submitted to Ames, J and by him reported to the full court, upon an agreed statement of facts, signed by the counsel of the plaintiff and of the claimant only, in which it was agreed that the trustees should be charged or discharged upon their answer according to the opinion of the court upon the following facts:

Samuel B. Rindge and Hales W. Suter, summoned as trustees, were parties of the second part to an indenture executed March 3 1873, whereby the firm of Sandford, Soule & Co., parties of the first part, conveyed their property to said Rindge and Suter, for the benefit of their creditors, who were parties of the third part to the indenture, upon the trust "as soon as may be to collect, sell and dispose of said trust property and reduce the same into money, and, after deducting and retaining therefrom all such costs, charges, expenses and disbursements as shall be sustained or incurred in the execution of the trusts herein contained, including the costs and expenses of preparing and executing these presents, and a reasonable compensation for their own services, then upon trust that the said parties of the second part shall divide, distribute and pay over all the residue of said trust property to and among said parties of the third part ratably: and in case there shall be any surplus after fulfilling said trusts they shall pay over the same to said parties of the first part."

The principal defendants were creditors of Sandford, Soule & Co., and parties to the indenture. At the date of the service of process upon the trustees, February 4, 1874, the trustees had not converted the whole of the assigned property into cash, so as to be ready for distribution, but then held real estate, choses in action and merchandise to the amount of $ 13,000, and cash to the amount of $ 64,000, subject to the said trust. On May 25, 1875, the trustees first declared a dividend of the proceeds of the trust property.

On October 14, 1873, the principal defendants, then doing business at, and residing in, Philadelphia in the State of Pennsylvania, made an assignment of their property to Henry Lewis, a resident of Pennsylvania, who appeared as claimant in this case. [The terms of the assignment are omitted as immaterial under the decision of the court.] Rindge and Suter had knowledge of this assignment before the service of the process in this suit.

Trustees discharged.

C. T. Russell, for the plaintiff.

H. C. Hutchins & A. S. Wheeler, for the claimant.

Gray, C. J. Ames & Morton, JJ., absent.

OPINION

By the Court.

A case stated in an action at law cannot be heard or reserved by a single justice of this court, but is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the full court. The provision of the Rev. Sts. c. 81, § 13, reenacted in the Gen. Sts. c. 112, § 5, has not been modified in this respect, as it has in regard to demurrers at law and to all proceedings in equity. Sts. 1852, c. 312, § 23; 1859, c. 237, § 1. Gen. Sts. c. 129, § 64; c. 113, § 6. Tufts v. Newton, 119 Mass. 476.

The report might be treated as merely superfluous, and the case heard upon the statement of facts agreed, but for the more serious objection that this statement, made for the purpose of determining the...