8021. Suffolk Trust Company (Boston, MA)

Article Text

Superior Court. Judge Silas A. Robinson has given a decision in the case of Francis M. Edwards, receiver for the Suffolk Trust company of Boston, vs. Freeman F. Patten of Stafford Springs in favor of the plaintiff. This decision is far-reaching in its effect, as the contest was largely in the nature of a test case to see if an outside receiver could come into the state of Connecticut and sue individuals for debts of the corporation. The Suffolk Trust company was organized in Boston May 2, 1887, with a capital stock of $100,000, divided into 1,000 shares. September 3, 1891, a receiver was appointed for the concern, and August 25, 1893, he declared a dividend of 38 per cent. of the legal obligations. The concern owes the State Street Exchange of Boston $10,508.83, and to pay this the receiver comes back on the stockholders, of which there are a number in Connecticut. Under Massachusetts law, which the receiver sets forth pretty fully in his complaint, the receiver holds that the stockholders as individuals are responsible for the debts of the concern. The ground taken by the defense was that an outside receiver had no right to come into this state and bring suit. Mr. Patten holds five shares of stock, which are assessed $66.61 a share, amounting to $333.05. The demurrer having been overruled, the defendants will now file an answer, and the case will probably be tried in the fall. The demurrer was argued in December by Stanley W. Edwards of Hartford for the plaintiff, and Charles E. Searls of Putnam and R. H. Fisk of Stafford Springs for the defense. W. B. Martin's appeal from the decision of the railroad commissioners was argued before Judge Shumway in the superior court Thursday. The Stafford Springs Street Railway company in surveying for its line to Rockville crossed property owned by Mr. Martin, who gave them an option on same. The company considered the price exorbitant and took the matter to the railroad commissioners, who ruled in favor of the company, and from this ruling Mr Martin appeals. The route outs through Mr. Martin's property on Tolland road, taking the front, so that the remainder of the lots front on the trolley in stead of on the highway, which Mr. Martin feels is a great detriment. The question argued before Judge Shumway was simply on the right of appeal, as to whether or not the finding of the commisisoners was final. Judge Shumway reserved his decision. Judge Shumway has rendered decisions in the cases of Edward M. Yeomans vs. Z. W. Jenks, et al., and Mathews vs. Converse, in which arguments were heard earlier in the present term of court. The decision is in favor of the plaintiff, giving him the right to redeem. In the case of Mathews vs. Converse, a will contest that has been in the courts for a number of years, the defendant's motion for a more specific answer was denied.