Case Name: William Foster versus Nathaniel Sinkler and Ezekiel Thompson, Trustee
Court: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Jurisdiction: Massachusetts
Decision Date: 1808-06
Citations: 3 Tyng 449
Docket Number: 
Parties: * William Foster versus Nathaniel Sinkler and Ezekiel Thompson, Trustee.
Judges: 
Reporter: Massachusetts Reports
Volume: 4
Pages: 394–394

Head Matter:
* William Foster versus Nathaniel Sinkler and Ezekiel Thompson, Trustee.
The promisor in a contract not negotiable, but which is assigned in equity, cannot be held as the trustee of the promisee after the assignment; but the assignment must be known to the trustee, and disclosed by him on his examination, or he will be held.
The only question, in this cause, was, whether Thompson, the supposed trustee, had in his hands any goods, effects, or credits, of the principal defendant, at the time of the service of the writ upon him.
The facts disclosed by Thompson, upon his examination, were, that prior to his being summoned in this action, he had given to Sinkler two promissory notes of one hundred dollars each, one of which was payable in stock; both the notes were due at the time of the service of the writ; neither of them was paid; nor was either of them payable to order.
Before the service of the writ, Thompson was informed that a person by the name of Morton had called at his house in his absence, and wanted payment of those notes. He also received a letter from Sinkler, informing him that he had transferred the notes to Morton, and had received some money. But neither Morton, nor any other person, ever demanded payment of the notes of Thompson, nor had he ever seen the notes since he signed them, until he saw them at the court below, when this suit was pending there.
Hasey, for the plaintiff,
contended that there was not sufficient evidence of a boná fide assignment of these notes. There ought, at least, to appear a notice to the debtor, and some diligence to collect the amount due.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The promisor in a contract not negotiable, but which is assigned in equity, cannot, after the assignment, be sued as the trustee of the promisee. The assignment cannot appear but by the disclosure of the promisor on the interrogatories. The assignee must, therefore, if he would avail himself of the assignment, exhibit to the trustee, before he is examined, satisfactory evidence of a legal assignment made before the attachment, that the trustee may, m his answers, lay this evidence before the Court. This is not done in the present case. The trustee has not been called on for payment by any assignee, who exhibited to him the [*451 ] * notes ; nor has he had any information of the transfer, which can be considered as evidence of the actual assignment, or of any consideration paid for it. He must be adjudged trustee.