Case Name: James Prescott, Plaintiff in Scire Facias, versus Lemuel Parker, Trustee of Simon Gilson
Court: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Jurisdiction: Massachusetts
Decision Date: 1808-03
Citations: 3 Tyng 170
Docket Number: 
Parties: James Prescott, Plaintiff in Scire Facias, versus Lemuel Parker, Trustee of Simon Gilson.
Judges: 
Reporter: Massachusetts Reports
Volume: 4
Pages: 155–156

Head Matter:
James Prescott, Plaintiff in Scire Facias, versus Lemuel Parker, Trustee of Simon Gilson.
A judgment debtor against whom an execution may issue, is not liable to an attachment as the trustee of the judgment creditor.
But if, being so attached, he discloses the judgment as effects or credits of the creditor in his hands, he is not held to pay interest on the judgment, because he has not unjustly detained it
A question arising in this case at the sittings before the Chief Justice, after the last October term at Cambridge, he reserved it for the decision of the whole Court; and, having consulted his brethren, he now reported the case, with their opinion, as follows: —
Gilson having recovered judgment against Parker for a large sum of money,— as soon as, or not long after, the rendition of the judgment, the goods, effects, and credits, of Gilson were attached, in the hands of Parker as his trustee, at the suit of several of Gil-son’s creditors, the plaintiff’s attachment being made the last. Parker disclosed the debt due by that judgment, as all the goods, effects, or credits, of Gilson in his hands, and he was adjudged the trustee of Gilson in the several suits, on which the attachments were made.
If Parker had denied that he was a trustee in consequence of that judgment, he might have been discharged, because Gilson, by suing his execution, could have compelled him to satisfy it, he not having any defence at law. But as *the pres- [ * 171 ] ent suit is a scire facias, on the original judgment still in force, to have execution against the body, goods, and effects, ot Parker, because he has not exposed effects of Gilson to satisfy that judgment, or satisfied it in any other way, the only question before the Court is, whether the judgment recovered by Gilson has been ' egally satisfied by Parker, by his discharging the executions of the prior attaching creditors.
Howell vs. Freeman & Trustee, ante, vol iii. 121

Opinion:
It is admitted that the judgment has been thus satisfied, unless Parker is liable by law to pay interest on that judgment until it was satisfied.
Interest is allowed m. an action of debt on judgment, as the measure of damages for unjustly detaining the debt. In this case, he was obliged by law to detain the debt from Gilson; and therefore he cannot be answerable to the attaching creditors for damages for the detention. Consequently Parker, having fully satisfied the judgment recovered by Gilson, had no effects of his in his hands for the benefit of the plaintiff, who, unfortunately, was, in order of time, the last attaching creditor. Parker must now be discharged ; but he is not entitled to costs, because he did not come in at the first term, and submit himself to an examination pursuant to the statute.