Case ID: mass_125/html/0475-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "By the Court.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Edward Herbert vs. George W. Bronson & trustee.
    Bristol.
    October 25, 1878.
    Endicott & Lord, JJ., absent.
    Future wages, to be earned under an engagement not existing at the time, are not capable of being assigned.
    Trustee process. Writ dated December 31, 1877, and served on January 1, 1878. The city of Fall River, summoned as trustee, answered that at the date of service upon it, it had in its hands belonging to the defendant the sum of $248. James Murphy, Jr., appeared as claimant of the funds in the hands o the trustee by virtue of an assignment, dated April 9, 1877, tr him from the defendant, of “all claims and demands I now have, and all which, at any time between the date hereof and the ninth day of April next, I may and shall have against the city of Fall River, for all sums of money due and for all sums of money and demand which, at any time between the date hereof and the said ninth day of April next, may and shall become due to me, for services as school teacher.”
    At the trial in the Superior Court, before Gardner, J., without a jury, it appeared that, at the date of the assignment, the defendant was employed as a school teacher by the city, under a contract, from September, 1876, to June 30, 1877 ; that on September 1, 1877, the defendant was hired by a new contract from that date until June 30, 1878; and that nothing was due the defendant on September 1, 1877, upon his prior contract, but that he had then been paid in full. It was admitted by the plaintiff that the assignment was founded on a valid consideration; that it was duly recorded; and that there was due the assignee from the defendant a larger sum than was in the hands of the trustee. The claimant contended that he was entitled to all sums earned by the defendant while in the employ of the city, during the year covered by the assignment.
    The judge found as a fact, that the contract, under which the defendant was employed when the assignment was made, terminated on June 30, 1877, and that a new contract was entered into between the defendant and the trustee on September 1, 1877; ruled that the assignment did not cover funds earned since September 1, 1877, as against the trustee process; and ordered the trustee to be charged. The claimant alleged exceptions.
    
      H. A. Dubuque, for the claimant.
    
      H. K. Braley, for the plaintiff, was not called upon.
   By the Court.

It is well settled that money to be earned hereafter under a new engagement is not assignable. Mulhall v. Quinn, 1 Gray, 105. Hartley v. Tapley, 2 Gray, 565. Twiss v Cheever, 2 Allen, 40. Exceptions overruled.