Regina Flour Mill Co. v. Holmes

• Decision Date: 25 February 1892
• Citation: 156 Mass. 11,30 N.E. 176
• Parties: REGINA FLOUR-MILL CO. v. HOLMES.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

156 Mass. 11

30 N.E. 176

REGINA FLOUR-MILL CO. v. HOLMES.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Middlesex.

February 25, 1892

Plaintiff was a corporation, resident in Missouri, and sued on two drafts on defendant, a resident of Massachusetts, for goods sold to defendant by plaintiff's salesman in Massachusetts. The drafts were accepted by defendant before maturity, but were not paid at maturity, and some time thereafter, and before this suit was brought, defendant was discharged in insolvency proceedings instituted in Massachusetts. In the schedule of creditors filed in defendant's insolvency proceedings there appeared the name of plaintiff, residence St. Louis, for the full amount of plaintiff's claim. Plaintiff made no proof of said drafts or of any claim in the insolvency proceedings of defendant.

COUNSEL

F.W. Kittredge, for plaintiff.

G.A.A. Pevey, for defendant.

OPINION

ALLEN, J.

There was no evidence which would warrant a finding that either the plaintiff corporation or the German Savings Institution was a resident of Massachusetts. The fact that the plaintiff made its contracts here, through an agent, who was resident here, does not have the effect to make the defendant's discharge in insolvency good as against the plaintiff. Guernsey v. Wood, 130 Mass. 503. The Hamilton National Bank took the drafts merely for collection. This appears from the indorsements themselves; and, if it did not, the fact might be shown otherwise. No doubt an action might have been maintained in the name of the Hamilton National Bank, although it had no interest in the drafts. Whitten v. Hayden, 9 Allen, 408; Spofford v. Norton, 126 Mass. 533. Whatever might be the rule in case such action had been brought, the discharge is no bar when the action is brought by the true owner, who is not a resident of Massachusetts. Nothing was proved to take the case out of the general rule, and the direction to return a verdict for the plaintiff was clearly right. Kelley v. Drury, 9 Allen, 27; Bank v. Batcheller, 151 Mass. 589, 24 N.E. 917. Exceptions overruled.