Douglass v. Cissna
Decision Date | 23 March 1885 |
Citation | 17 Mo.App. 44 |
Parties | ROBERT DOUGLASS ET AL., Appellants, v. JOHN W. CISSNA, Respondent. |
Court | Kansas Court of Appeals |
APPEAL from Nodaway Circuit Court, HON. H. S. KELLEY, Judge.
Affirmed.
Motion for rehearing denied.
Statement of case by the court.
This is an action of attachment. The affidavit for the writ is as follows:
The action grew out of the following state of facts:
The defendant, in 1881, was merchandizing at the town of Clearmont, in Nodaway county. He owed, according to the evidence, the 1st of December, debts unsecured amounting to about $5000.00. His stock of goods and other assets amounted to about $6000.00, by rough estimate. His principal creditor was the firm of Tootle, Hosea & Co., of St. Joseph. Being behind with his payments, his creditors began to press him with their demands. On or about the 3rd day of December, C W. Campbell, of the firm of Tootle, Hosea & Co., visited the defendant, and urged him to secure their claim in some way. The result of which was, that on the 5th of December, Cissna agreed to execute to Tootle, Hosea & Co., the following instrument:
On the 6th of December, the foregoing instrument was duly executed, acknowledged and put to record the same day; and Campbell took immediate possession of the goods. By this time other creditors appeared upon the scene, among them the plaintiffs, who urged the defendant to provide for all his creditors equally. Some of these deferred creditors claim that Cissna and Campbell both represented to them that the goods had been sold to Tootle, Hosea & Co.; but a copy of the deed was exhibited to them by defendant. The plaintiffs failing to secure their claim, instituted this attachment suit on the same day of the execution of the deed, but subsequent thereto.
On the trial of the issues, made up on the plea in abatement, much evidence was introduced by plaintiffs showing the history of the transaction in question, and endeavoring chiefly to show that the defendant's object in making said deed was to prefer Tootle, Hosea & Co., and defer the other creditors to secure to himself an advantage. Among other facts developed on the trial was the following telegram sent Campbell from his house in St. Joseph:
" Dated St. Joe, Mo., Dec. 6, 1881.
Received at Clearmont, Mo., at 5:50 P. M.
To C. W. Campbell, --
Judson says to make the sale good, you must buy the stock and accounts for a specific amount.
TOOTLE, HOSEA & Co."
This was after the said deed was executed and filed for record. It seems that on the receipt of this telegram, Campbell drew up and had Cissna sign the following paper:
" CLEARMONT, Mo., December 6, 1881.
For and in consideration of the sum of two thousand dollars, to me in hand paid, the receipt of which is herein acknowledged, I sell my stock of dry goods, groceries, queensware, boots, shoes, hats and caps, and store furniture contained in the two-story frame building situate on lot (2), block (2), town of Clearmont, formerly occupied by me. Also all my books and accounts, and deliver the same to Tootle, Hosea & Co., sixth day of December, 1881, to have and to hold for their exclusive benefit.
JOHN W. CISSNA.
W. G. Craig, witness."
This paper had the following endorsement on the back:
" CLEARMONT, Mo., December 6th, 1881.
The object of this bill of sale, as named within, is not to deprive any creditor of their pro rata division, but to more absolutely confirm the sale of December 5th to Tootle, Hosea & Co., for the purpose named in said sale. They agreeing to carry it out in all its provisions, and make the pro rata division as provided for in said sale, after receiving their pay in full.
J. W. CISSNA,
TOOTLE, HOSEA & Co.
Witness, W. G. Craig."
Whether this endorsement was made at the instant of the execution of the bill of sale or shortly thereafter, was affirmed by the one party, and denied or questioned by the other.
There was no evidence tending to show any secret arrangement between the defendant and Campbell, by which any property was concealed or otherwise disposed of than is expressed on the face of the deed. There was a statement of defendant, to the effect that he expected Tootle, Hosea & Co. to put other goods or buy other goods to keep up stock so as the better to sell the goods transferred; and that his purpose in making the deed was to give Tootle, Hosea & Co. a preference and that the other creditors were not to be paid until T., H. & Co.'s debt was satisfied. But his evidence tended strongly to show that his purpose was to have his property held to the payment of all his debts, and that he did not expect any returns to himself out of the property conveyed until after the satisfaction of all of his creditors....
To continue reading
Request your trial