National Mahaiwe Bank v. Barry
Cases that cite this one
17 later published cases cite this decision.
- Boston Trading Group, Inc. v. Robert A. Burnazos, Boston Trading Group, Inc. v. Robert A. Burnazos (1st Cir. 1988)
- Mickelson v. Barnet (Mass. 1984)
- Goodspeed's Book Shop, Inc. v. State Street Bank & Trust Co. (Mass. App. Ct. 1979)
- City of Boston v. Santosuosso (Mass. 1937)
- Mehler's Appeal (Pa. 1932)
- E. C. Bowman & Son Co. v. Hern (Mass. 1921)
- County Court of Raleigh County v. Cottle (W. Va. 1918)
- Williams v. McCarty (W. Va. 1918)
- Morin v. Kirkland (Mass. 1917)
- Malden & Melrose Gas Light Co. v. Chandler (Mass. 1911)
- Zobel v. Fannie Rawlings Mining Co. (Colo. 1910)
- Hinsey v. Supreme Lodge Knights of Pythias (Ill. App. Ct. 1908)
- McCusker v. Geiger (Mass. 1907)
- Hutchinson v. Le Roy (1st Cir. 1902)
- Commonwealth v. Moore (Mass. 1896)
- Warner v. Morse (Mass. 1889)
- Humphreys v. Butler (Ark. 1888)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
Upon the case stated in the bill, equity will charge the land purchased in the name of Mrs. Barry with a trust in favor of the plaintiff bank for the amount of $1500 of its money, which had been wrongfully obtained by her son and invested in the purchase of that land. Bresnihan v. Sheehan, ante, 11. United States v. State Bank, 96 U. S. 30. The demurrer was therefore rightly overruled.
The decision of the presiding judge at the hearing on the merits is not brought up by appeal under the Gen. Sts. c. 113, §§ 8, TO, but by bill of exceptions under e. 115, § 7. It is not therefore open to revision in matter of fact, and the only question before us is whether, as matter of law, the evidence introduced justified a decree for the plaintiff.
That evidence warranted the judge in inferring that the son, being a minor and living with his parents, received the money from a thief, knowing it to have been stolen from the plaintiff; that neither the son nor his parents appeared to have had any other sufficient means to make the purchase of the land from Girling; and that therefore it must have been purchased with the money of the plaintiff. Upon this state of facts, the plaintiff
Decree for the plaintiff accordingly.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.