100 Ill. 34 (Ill. 1881), Goembel v. Arnett

Citation:100 Ill. 34
Opinion Judge:Mr. Justice Scholfield.
Party Name:WILLIAM S. GOEMBEL et al. v. SAMUEL J. ARNETT et al
Attorney:Mr. GEO. W. SHAW, for the appellants: Mr. CHARLES DUNHAM, for the appellees:
Case Date:May 14, 1881
Court:Supreme Court of Illinois

Page 34

100 Ill. 34 (Ill. 1881)




Supreme Court of Illinois

May 14, 1881

September 1881, Decided

Rehearing Denied September Term, 1881.

Page 35

[Syllabus Material]

Page 36

[Syllabus Material]

Page 37

[Syllabus Material]

Page 38

[Syllabus Material]

Page 39

[Syllabus Material]

Page 40

[Syllabus Material]

Page 41

APPEAL from the Appellate Court for the Second District;--heard in that court on appeal from the Circuit Court of Henry county; the Hon. JOHN J. GLENN, Judge, presiding.

William S. Goembel and Jacob Goembel filed their bill in chancery in the office of the clerk of the circuit court of Henry county, against Samuel J. Arnett, Jacob Arnett and Wesley C. Graham, alleging therein, in substance, that in September, 1875, William S. Goembel, Samuel J. Arnett and John Rapp formed an equal partnership, for the purpose of merchandising in Geneseo; that such firm did business until November, 1876, when Rapp retired from the firm; that thereafter Arnett and Goembel continued the business, and having assumed the debts of the old firm, they paid or substituted their own liability for all of them, except $ 700 due Jacob Goembel, and $ 300 due another person; that they continued the business until July, 1878, when differences having intervened, it was agreed between them that Arnett should have the entire stock in trade, all the accounts, etc., and in consideration thereof that he should pay all the debts of the firm, including the debts still unpaid of the firm of Arnett, Goembel & Rapp, pay Goembel $ 2000, employ Goembel to work for him for a month in settling accounts, and that he should secure the payment of the purchase money and indemnify Goembel, by proper instruments in writing, to be signed by Jacob Arnett as surety; that Goembel worked a month, as agreed, and during that time frequently urged Arnett to perfect the agreement by executing the writings, but he postponed the matter from day to day, at one time pretending he was negotiating the sale of an interest in the firm to Wesley C. Graham, who would bring in money enough to pay the $ 2000, and at other times suggesting the absence of Jacob Arnett from town, as reason for delay.

It is further alleged, that at this time the firm was possessed of sufficient assets to pay its debts, having on hand about $ 10,000 worth of goods, besides outstanding notes and accounts; that the firm owed several notes, on which Jacob Goembel and Jacob Arnett, the fathers of its members, were joint sureties, namely: one of $ 1000, to David Suther; one of $ 1000, to John W. McClelland; one of $ 600, to First National Bank of Geneseo; one of $ 500, to Patrick O'Day; also a note to Carson, Pirie, Scott & Co., on which Jacob Arnett was sole surety, amounting to $ 800, and one of $ 400 to same firm, on which Jacob Goembel was sole surety; and that the firm also owed Jacob Goembel $ 2700, including the $ 700 of the old firm of Rapp, Goembel & Arnett.

And it is further alleged, that Samuel and Jacob Arnett entered into a combination to defraud the complainants, and, although Jacob Arnett well knew Samuel Arnett had assumed to pay the debts of the firm, on the 4th of September, 1878, he received a bill of sale from Samuel Arnett of all the partnership stock and assets, for which the only consideration was that Jacob Arnett was surety as aforesaid, and was also surety for Samuel Arnett on divers private debts, and Samuel Arnett owed him some amount unknown to the complainants; that this arrangement being made, Samuel Arnett, on September 6, 1878, informed William S. Goembel that he could pay him nothing and could do nothing toward securing him from the debts of the firm; that Samuel Arnett is, personally, insolvent; that Jacob Arnett cooperated with him for the purpose of obtaining a fraudulent preference, in order...

To continue reading