Taylor v. Burke, 69 Mass. App. Ct. 77 (2007)
- Citation
- Taylor v. Burke, 69 Mass. App. Ct. 77 (2007)
- Parent Document
- Taylor v. Burke, 69 Mass. App. Ct. 77 (2007)
- Jurisdiction
- Massachusetts (state)
- Effective Date
- 2007-05-17
- Original Source
- https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6588591/taylor-v-burke/ ↗
Other Sections in This Document (31)
- Taylor v. Burke, 69 Mass. App. Ct. 77 (2007)
- Taylor v. Burke, 69 Mass. App. Ct. 77 (2007)
- Taylor v. Burke, 69 Mass. App. Ct. 77 (2007)
- Taylor v. Burke, 69 Mass. App. Ct. 77 (2007)
- Taylor v. Burke, 69 Mass. App. Ct. 77 (2007)
- Taylor v. Burke, 69 Mass. App. Ct. 77 (2007)
- Taylor v. Burke, 69 Mass. App. Ct. 77 (2007)
- Taylor v. Burke, 69 Mass. App. Ct. 77 (2007)
- Taylor v. Burke, 69 Mass. App. Ct. 77 (2007)
- Taylor v. Burke, 69 Mass. App. Ct. 77 (2007)
- Taylor v. Burke, 69 Mass. App. Ct. 77 (2007)
- Taylor v. Burke, 69 Mass. App. Ct. 77 (2007)
- Taylor v. Burke, 69 Mass. App. Ct. 77 (2007)
- Taylor v. Burke, 69 Mass. App. Ct. 77 (2007)
- Taylor v. Burke, 69 Mass. App. Ct. 77 (2007)
- Taylor v. Burke, 69 Mass. App. Ct. 77 (2007)
- Taylor v. Burke, 69 Mass. App. Ct. 77 (2007)
- Taylor v. Burke, 69 Mass. App. Ct. 77 (2007)
- Taylor v. Burke, 69 Mass. App. Ct. 77 (2007)
- Taylor v. Burke, 69 Mass. App. Ct. 77 (2007)
- Taylor v. Burke, 69 Mass. App. Ct. 77 (2007)
- Taylor v. Burke, 69 Mass. App. Ct. 77 (2007)
- Taylor v. Burke, 69 Mass. App. Ct. 77 (2007)
- Taylor v. Burke, 69 Mass. App. Ct. 77 (2007)
- Taylor v. Burke, 69 Mass. App. Ct. 77 (2007)
- Taylor v. Burke, 69 Mass. App. Ct. 77 (2007)
- Taylor v. Burke, 69 Mass. App. Ct. 77 (2007)
- Taylor v. Burke, 69 Mass. App. Ct. 77 (2007)
- Taylor v. Burke, 69 Mass. App. Ct. 77 (2007)
- Taylor v. Burke, 69 Mass. App. Ct. 77 (2007)
- Taylor v. Burke, 69 Mass. App. Ct. 77 (2007)
Full Text
1,168 charsAs with other canons of construction, the last antecedent rule is not always outcome determinative. See Selectmen of Topsfield. v. State Racing Commn., 324 Mass. 309, 312 (1949). Our interpretation is buttressed, however, by a reading of the statute in conjunction with G. L. c. 186, § 15B(1)(e). This section provides: “A security deposit shall continue to be the property of the tenant making such deposit . . . .” The affidavit from the bank, giving the full name of the bank as the Citizens Bank of New Hampshire, and the location of the account, in Amherst, New Hampshire, mentions nothing with respect to this bank’s relationship with any bank in Massachusetts, or whether the subject bank has branches in Massachusetts. Further, the affidavit, the record, and the findings are silent as to which State law governs the relationship of accounts and deposits to the bank with depositors and with third parties. See, e.g., Pappalardo v. Bank of Boston, Essex, N.A., 133 N.H. 855 (1991) (New Hampshire court applied New Hampshire law in determining that deposit in Massachusetts branch of bank did not come under rubric of “goods and chattels” subject to distraint).