Adams v. Berg

• Citation: 65 Miss. 3,3 So. 465
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
• Decision Date: 30 January 1888
• Parties: W. T. ADAMS v. S. H. BERG

3 So. 465

65 Miss. 3

W. T. ADAMS v. S. H. BERG

Supreme Court of Mississippi

January 30, 1888

APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Monroe County, HON. LOCK E HOUSTON, Judge.

This is an action of replevin brought by W. T. Adams against S. H Berg, to recover possession of certain property, consisting of miscellaneous machinery.

It appears that Berg purchased the property in question on January 7, 1887, at an execution sale under a judgment in favor of himself against the "R. H. Adams Manufacturing Company." Plaintiff claimed the property by virtue of a purchase under a deed of trust, of earlier date than the judgment, executed by R. H. Adams, individually, and also by virtue of certain notes for the purchase money of the property, in which the title was retained in himself until such notes should be paid.

On the issue whether the property was subject to a judgment against the "R. H. Adams Manufacturing Company," the evidence for the defendant tended to show that the property in controversy was situated in a house occupied by the "R. H. Adams Manufacturing Company;" that this company was then carrying on the business of manufacturing and selling such kinds of machinery as that in controversy and that the same was thus used in carrying on their business.

The testimony of R. H. Adams, witness for the plaintiff, was as follows: "There was never any company organized as 'Adams Manufacturing Company,' and not a certificate of stock issued to any one. A meeting was once held and elected witness president, and other officers, but not one of them assumed any duties, and there the matter ended. There was no sign about my place of business, and no one had anything whatever to do with it but myself. I tried to organize a manufacturing company, but failed, and continued the business myself. I caused three advertisements to be made, thinking I would organize a manufacturing company. The property in controversy was used by me in my business."

Thereupon the court instructed the jury to find in favor of the defendant, Berg, and there was judgment accordingly.

The plaintiff appealed.

Reversed and remanded.

W. B Walker, for the appellant.

It seems superfluous to argue that the "R. H. Adams Manufacturing Company" had not so managed and transacted the business of R. H. Adams as to condemn his property to pay the debts of such company, when it is shown that no such company existed, and that if it did exist it...