Badgett v. Johnson-Fife Hat Co.
Decision Date | 14 February 1898 |
Docket Number | 939. |
Citation | 85 F. 408 |
Parties | BADGETT v. JOHNSON-FIFE HAT CO. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
This is an action by attachment by the Johnson-Fife Hat Company against J. D. Blosser, in which W. R. Badgett interpleaded claiming the property attached by virtue of a deed of general assignment made by Blosser to him prior to the attachment. A judgment against the interpleader was affirmed by the court of appeals for the Indian Territory and he brings the case on error to this court.
William T. Hutchings, for plaintiff in error.
John B Turner, and James B. Burckhalter (George B. Denison and N. B Maxey, on the brier), for defendant in error.
Before SANBORN and THAYER, Circuit Judges, and PHILIPS, District Judge.
On the 9th of November, 1894, one J. D. Blosser, a merchant of Chelsea, Cherokee Nation, Indian Territory, executed and delivered a deed of assignment to the interpleader, W. R Badgett, conveying to him, in trust, the goods and merchandise in question. The deed conveyed all the property of the sad assignor for the benefit of creditors, with preferences, as was permissible under the statute regulating assignments applicable to that territory. This deed was delivered to the assignee perhaps the day following its execution, but the inventory and bond required by statute to be made out by the assignee were not filed with the clerk of the court until November 24, 1894. The deed of assignment contained the following provision:
On the 16th day of November, 1894, the defendant in error, Johnson-Fife Hat Company, instituted suit against J. D. Blosser to recover a debt of $212.35, which action was aided by an attachment proceeding under which the goods and merchandise in question were seized. On May 9, 1895, W. R. Badgett, plaintiff in error, filed in said cause his interplea, claiming the ownership and possession of said property under the assignment aforesaid. On the issues tried between these parties to a jury there was a verdict and judgment against the interpleader. From that judgment an appeal was prosecuted to the court of appeals of the territory, where the judgment of the court below was affirmed. 38 S.W. 667. To reverse this judgment the interpleader brought the case to this court on writ of error.
The only questions presented for review, under the assignment of errors, arise on the giving and refusing to give certain instructions on the trial and as to the admission of certain evidence. The instruction refused is as follows:
The instructions given by the court complained of are as follows:
The statute of the state of Arkansas contains the following provision:
'In all cases in which any person shall make an assignment of property, whether real, personal, mixed or choses in action, for the payment of debts; before the assignee thereof shall be entitled to take possession, sell or in any way manage or control any property so assigned, he shall be required to file in the office of the clerk of the court exercising equity jurisdiction a full and complete inventory and description of such property; and also make and execute a bond to the state of Arkansas in double the estimated value of the property in said assignment, with good and sufficient security, to be approved by the clerk of said court: conditioned,' etc.
There was some evidence in the case tending to show that on the next day, which was Saturday, after the execution and delivery of the deed of assignment, the assignee went to the store at Chelsea and gave some directions to the clerk in charge thereof about taking an inventory of the stock of goods, and that on the Monday following said clerk went to where the assignee lived, and delivered to him the inventory and the key which he had to the store building. There was another key to this building,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Solomon Dehydrating Company v. Guyton
...v. Brookside Theatre Corp., 8 Cir., 194 F.2d 846, 855, certiorari denied 343 U.S. 942, 72 S.Ct. 1035, 96 L.Ed. 1348; Badgett v. Johnson-Fife Hat Co., 8 Cir., 85 F. 408, 411; Little Rock & M. R. Co. v. Moseley, 8 Cir., 56 F. 1009, 1010; Silverman v. Travelers Ins. Co., 5 Cir., 277 F. 2d 257,......
-
State National Bank of Texarkana v. Birmingham
...the point at issue as his instruction numbered 2, and given by the court, and he cannot now urge that on appeal. 67 Ark. 531; 132 Ark. 450; 85 F. 408; 88 Ark. 172; 93 Ark. 94 Ark. 524. Hanson's statement conplained of could not be prejudicial from the fact that Birmingham testified to the s......
-
Krienke v. Illinois Central Railroad Company
...when the same error is found in its own instructions. Little Rock & M. R. Co. v. Moseley, 8 Cir., 56 F. 1009, 1010; Badgett v. Johnson-Fife Hat Co., 8 Cir., 85 F. 408, 411; Spring Creek Drain. Dist. v. Greenawalt, 335 Ill. 147, 148, 166 N.E. 6. I.C. contends that Belt's instruction 2, as mo......
-
Skaggs v. Gypsy Oil Co.
...error upon the giving of this instruction, or claim there was no evidence to support the giving of such instruction. Badgett v. Johnson Fife Hat Co. (C. C. A.) 85 F. 408. ¶23 In the case of Hutchins v. Richardson, 100 Okla. 80, 227 P. 432, this court held: "A party on appeal in the Supreme ......