Lucius Quintus Cincinnatus Lamar

Summary

Lucius Quintus Cincinnatus Lamar Noble v. Hammond — Opinion of the Court

The supreme court of Vermont affirmed the judgment of that court, on the ground that, though the above charge was technically erroneous, it was harmless, because the act of the defendant, in mingling the money with his own and using it, was, in the face of the plaintiffs' instruction to keep it until the called for it, a wrongful and fraudulent act, a betrayal by the defendant of the trust reposed in him, and therefore a fraud which created a debt that was not discharged by the defendant's composition with his creditors under the provisions of the bankrupt law.
Source: Wikisource

Lucius Quintus Cincinnatus Lamar Noble v. Hammond — Opinion of the Court

Even if the agreement between the parties might be construed as creating a trust in some sense, it was clearly not such a trust as comes within the provisions of the bankrupt act. Nor can the subsequent mingling by the plaintiff in error of the money collected with his own constitute the actual, positive fraud contemplated by that act, but only such an implied fraud as is involved in most or all cases of conversion of property or of breach of contract.
Source: Wikisource

Lucius Quintus Cincinnatus Lamar Noble v. Hammond — Opinion of the Court

Clews, to have been 'not only followed, but approved, by the highest courts of several of the states.' Under section 5117, which is substantially a re-enactment of the provision of the act of 1841 in this regard, with the single additional provision that 'no debt created by fraud shall be discharged,' etc., this court, on the line of the same reasoning, has construed the word 'fraud,' as used in that section, to mean positive fraud, or fraud in fact,-involving moral turpitude or intentional wrong, as does embezzlement, and not implied fraud, or fraud in law
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature