Wade v. Bessey
| Decision Date | 15 October 1884 |
| Citation | 76 Me. 413 |
| Parties | A. C. WADE v. THOMAS BESSEY, and EDWARD and MICHAEL CULLEN, Trustees. |
| Court | Maine Supreme Court |
ON EXCEPTIONS to the ruling of the court in discharging the trustees.
The trustees disclosed that in the fall of 1882, the defendant was hired for them by Levi T. Pike, to work for them in the woods, and he worked for them in the unorganized township called Brassua, from October 30, 1882, until the service of the writ March 23, 1883, when they were indebted to him for wages in the sum of one hundred and six dollars; that while the defendant was thus working for them he lived in their camp at Brassua, and his family resided in Brighton; that at the time Bessey was employed he gave Pike the following assignment of his wages:
that this paper was recorded in the town clerk's office Brighton, and sent to the trustees when Bessey comemenced work; and that Pike claimed all the wages due to Bessey and had notified the trustees thereof.
Brown and Carver, for the plaintiff, contended that the paper given by Bessey to Pike was not valid as against the plaintiff as an assignment of wages, because it contained no apt words of conveyance or assignment, at most it was only a certificate, and because there was no evidence that, at the time the paper was given, Bessey had entered into any contract of labor with the trustees, and further, because the assignment was not recorded in the place where Bessey was commorant while earning the wages, nor in the oldest adjoining town or organized plantation, citing: R. S., c. 111, § 6; Hope Iron Works v. Holden, 58 Me. 146 Farnsworth v. Jackson, 32 Me. 419; Emerson v. E. & N. A. R. R. Co. 67 Me. 387.
Henry Hudson, for the trustees.
It has been generally held that a thing having a potential existence may be sold or mortgaged. This proposition is variously illustrated in Farrar v. Smith, 64 Me. 74, and in Emerson v. E. & N. A. Railway Co. 67 Me. 392. And while the mere expectation of earning money cannot, in the absence of any contract on which to found such expectation, be assigned future wages to be earned under a present contract imparting...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kirkman v. Bird
... ... New York Belting, etc., Co., 39 Conn. 536; Harrop v ... Landers, etc., Co., 45 Conn. 561; Metcalf v ... Kincaid, 87 Iowa 443; Wade v. Bessey, 76 Me ... 413; Pullen v. Monk, 82 Me. 412; Shaffer v ... Union Min. Co. 55 Md. 74; Ouimit v. Sirois, 124 ... Mass. 162; ... ...
-
Shiro v. Drew
...Supp. 650; 2 Williston on Contracts § 428 (Rev. ed. 1936). While no particular words are required for an assignment (See e. g. Wade v. Bessey, 1884, 76 Me. 413), the intent to transfer a present interest must be manifest, and the assignor must not retain any control over the right assigned ......
-
Union Pacific Railway Company v. Douglas County Bank
...Remedies & Remedial Rights, 184; Field v. Mayor of City of New York, 6 N.Y. 179; Lawson, Rights, Remedies & Practice, sec. 2652; Wade v. Bessey, 76 Me. 413; Hawley v. Bristol, 39 Conn. 27; Augur v. York Belting & Packing Co., 39 Conn. 536; Payne v. Mayor of Mobile, 4 Ala., 333; Bradley v. R......
-
Holt v. Am. Woolen Co.
...But future wages to be earned under a present existing contract, imparting to them a potential existence, may be assigned. Wade v. Bessey, 76 Me. 413. The plaintiff's action for money had and received, however, is governed by equitable principles. If, upon a proper prayer, in equity he woul......