Case Name: Nathaniel Butler versus William E. Starrett and Adoniram J. Day, trustee
Court: Maine Supreme Judicial Court
Jurisdiction: Maine
Decision Date: 1863
Citations: 52 Me. 281
Docket Number: 
Parties: Nathaniel Butler versus William E. Starrett and Adoniram J. Day, trustee.
Judges: Davis, Walton, Barrows and Daneorth, JJ., concurred.
Reporter: Maine Reports
Volume: 52
Pages: 281–287

Head Matter:
Nathaniel Butler versus William E. Starrett and Adoniram J. Day, trustee.
A person, summoned as trustee, will not be entitled to costs, when he comes and files, on the 7th day of the first term, the written declaration (made under oath and mentioned in § 13, c. 86 of the R. S.,) denying that, “at the time of the service of the writ upon him, he had any goods,” &c., “ belonging to the principal defendant, in Ms possession,” and that he “thereby submits himself to further examination, on oath;” unless, in accordance with the 12th rule of Court, he “ give written notice to the attorney for the plaintiff” that “ he presents himself for examination,” or in the absence of said attorney, “ cause to be entered upon the docket” that he presents himself for examination."
Riling- such a declaration, and causing to be noted upon the docket “ (7) trustee disclosure of A. J. Bird, received and filed,” &e., is not sufficient.
On Exceptions from Nisi Prius, Rice, J., presiding.
The question raised is, whether the person summoned as trustee in this action may recover costs.
On the 7th day of the first term, the alleged trustee came and filed his general declaration, signed, and sworn to be fore the clerk, denying that, "at the time of the service of the writ upon him, he had any goods, effects or credits of said principal defendant in his possession,” thereby "submitting himself to further examination on oath,” and praying "to be discharged and for his costs.”
The plaintiff’s attorney was not in Court, when the above declaration was filed, nor at any time thereafter during the term, which closed the next day.
The entry upon the docket was as follows : —" (7) trustee dis. of A. J. Bird, received and filed, Feb. term, 1863.”
The case was continued until April term, when the alleged trustee appeared three successive days to disclose further, but no interrogatories were put to him by the plaintiff’s counsel, and the alleged trustee was discharged, claiming costs which were allowed by the clerk. An appeal was taken to the presiding Judge who affirmed the adjudication of the clerk, and the plaintiff excepted.
A. P. Gould, for the plaintiff.
L. W. Howes, for the trustee.

Opinion:
The opinion of a majority of the Court was drawn by
Cutting, J.
Statute c. 86, § 13, provides that, — " If any supposed trustee comes into Court at the first term, and submits himself to examination on oath, after having, in writing, declared that, at the time of the service of the trustee process upon him, he had not any goods, effects or credits of the principal in his possession, he shall be entitled to his costs, as in civil actions where issue is joined for trial."
The allegation in the plaintiff's writ, in substance, is, that the principal defendant is indebted to the plaintiff!, and, at the same time, the supposed trustee is indebted to the principal defendant: which, if true, there would be no necessity of the appearance of either in Court, but they should submit to a default, and the funds in the possession of the trustee would, by operation of law, and comparatively at small expense, be transferred to the judgment creditor to the amount of his judgment, not exceeding, however, the amount in the trustee's hands at the time of service of the process upon him, which, if not paid to the officer holding the execution, on demand, within thirty days after judgment, would render such delinquent trustee liable to the process of scire facias.
But, in this case, it would seem, that the supposed trustee was justified in coming into Court and denying the plaintiff's allegation as to him. Pie does appear at the first term, and declares, in the language of the section, that at the time of the service of the trustee process upon him, he had not any goods, effects or credits of the principal defendant in his possession. Such denial was, in Toothacre v. Allen & trustee, 41 Maine, 324, considered in the nature of a plea; and in Moore v. Towle & trustee, 38 Maine, 133, equivalent to an answer in a bill in equity, both of which issues were to be settled on ulterior proceedings. .This denial, plea or answer it was necessary for the trustee to make before, and as preliminary to submitting himself to examination on oath. The mere filing of such denial would constitute no submission, no more than a prior filing of a plea of the general issue would of itself constitute a defence, in the absence of the defendant when the case was called up for trial; or, in other words, a plea filed, never, in practice, dispenses with the personal attendance of the party so as to prevent a default.
Mow, the trustee contends that, having appeared the first term and filed his denial, in the absence of both the plaintiff and his attorney, he is entitled to costs because, he argues, that such an act is equivalent to submitting himself to examination on oath. To whom did he submit himself to examination? Not to the party interested, or to any party. To submit to an examination implies an exatnining party authorized to put interrogatories eliciting true answers. There has been no such submission.
•Is the trustee excusable for such neglect ? The case finds that the declaration was filed on the seventh day of the term, the day previous to the final adjournment, and that the plain tiff's attorney was not present during the term. Upon which finding, it is contended that the trustee was excused from submitting himself to an examination under oath, inasmuch as no party was in Court to whom he could submit himself. Such excuse may be plausible, but not legal. The statute is peremptory that the submission shall be at the first term, and this Court has made ample provision for just such a contingency.
Rule 12. "In cases of foreign attachment, when any trustee shall present himself for examination,' he or his attorney shall give written notice to the attorney for the plaintiff, or, in his absence, cause the same to be noted on the docket; and, upon motion, the Court may fix a time for the disclosure to be made."
In the absence of the attorney it was incumbent on the trustee to cause to be entered upon the docket that "he presented himself for examination," and, upon motion, to have a time fixed for the disclosure.
The absence, of the plaintiff's attorney might dispense with the written notice, but not with such entry upon the docket and an order' thereupon fixing the time for a disclo-, sure. No such docket entry'was made — no such time was fixed, and the rule was wholly disregarded. We cannot sanction such a practice, and we consider the party, who attempted it, to have forfeited all claim to judicial sympathy.
, Exceptions sustained — costs disallowed.
Davis, Walton, Barrows and Daneorth, JJ., concurred.