Witters v. Globe Sav. Bank
| Decision Date | 22 June 1898 |
| Parties | WITTERS v. GLOBE SAV. BANK OF CHICAGO et al. (CHICAGO TITLE & TRUST CO., Intervener). |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Robert B. Kendall, for appellant.
Williams & Copeland, for appellee.
In this case the plaintiff is not an inhabitant of Massachusetts, but of Vermont. The Chicago Title & Trust Company claims title to the funds in the hands of the alleged trustee, not only by virtue of the decree of the circuit court of Cook county, in the state of Illinois, entered on April 5, 1897, appointing it a receiver of the defendant, but by virtue of an assignment under seal to it as such receiver, executed by the defendant on April 6, 1897, in pursuance of the decree. That assignment purports to convey to the receiver all the property and effects of the defendant, "wheresoever situated." The defendant is a corporation organized under the laws of the state of Illinois, and it is agreed that said circuit court "had jurisdiction to appoint said receiver." The plaintiff's writ was served on the alleged trustee on April 13, 1897. Such an assignee has a right to intervene in the proceedings, and claim the funds. Buswell v. Order of Iron Hall, 161 Mass. 224, 36 N.E. 1065; Dennis v. Twitchell, 10 Metc. (Mass.) 180; Norton v. Insurance Co. (Insurance Co. v Edgerly) 111 Mass. 532.
We think that the assignment must be held valid as against the subsequent attachment by the plaintiff. Frank v Bobbitt, 155 Mass. 112, 29 N.E. 209; Faulkner v Hyman, 142 Mass. 53, 6 N.E. 846. It is argued by the counsel for the plaintiff that the assignment shown in this case is not voluntary, and so should not be sustained as against the attachment; and Taylor v. Insurance Co., 14 Allen, 353, is relied on. The assignment in this case is not a judicial assignment or a statutory assignment, but a compulsory assignment, valid by the laws of Illinois, where it was made. How far such an assignment can be regarded as having the effect of a voluntary assignment, or as having only the effect of a judicial or statutory assignment, has not been decided in this commonwealth.
As a general rule, assignments and conveyances which defendants in equity are compelled to make are as valid as if voluntarily made. The case discloses no statutes of the state of Illinois, and we cannot take judicial notice of any such statutes. We must assume, on the papers before us, that the receiver was appointed under the general powers of a court of equity, and that the assignment was made by a defendant over which the court had full jurisdiction. See High, Rec. (3d Ed.) § 244; Gluck & B.Rec. (2d Ed.) p. 225 et seq. It seems to have been assumed by all parties that the assignment was made for the creditors of the defendant...
To continue reading
Request your trial