Trust Company Bank v. The Gloucester Corporation
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
643 N.E.2d 16 (1994)

- Written by Douglas Halasz, JD
Facts
Fleet National Bank (Fleet Bank) and Cooperative Centrale Raiffeisen-Boerenleenbank, B.A. (Cooperative Bank) (defendants) held perfected security interests in all of Gloucester Corporation’s (Gloucester) tangible and intangible personal property, including after-acquired property. Thereafter, Sigma International, Inc. (Sigma) agreed to sell scallops to Gloucester. On January 16, 1992, Sigma delivered $143,391 worth of scallops to Gloucester. The invoice for the scallops stated that the sale was pending FDA release, specified that payment was due within 30 days after the FDA-release date, and indicated that Sigma assigned its right to payment to Trust Company Bank (Trust Bank) (plaintiff). On January 24, 1992, Fleet Bank and Cooperative Bank determined that Gloucester was in default and seized and liquidated the scallops. Trust Bank sued Fleet Bank and Cooperative Bank for conversion. Fleet Bank and Cooperative Bank moved for summary judgment on the grounds that they held perfected security interests in the scallops. Trust Bank argued that Fleet Bank’s and Cooperative Bank’s interests never attached to the scallops because Gloucester did not have rights in the collateral until the FDA release occurred and, therefore, Trust Bank had a superior interest in the scallops. The lower court granted summary judgment in Fleet Bank’s and Cooperative Bank’s favor. Trust Bank appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Greaney, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.