Adkins v. W. & J. Sloane, 344.

• Decision Date: 12 February 1894
• Docket Number: 344.
• Citation: 60 F. 344
• Parties: ADKINS v. W. & J. SLOANE. [1]
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

60 F. 344

ADKINS v. W. & J. SLOANE. ^[1]

No. 344.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

February 12, 1894

Henry Wollman and Clarence S. Palmer (R. O. Boggess, Scammon &amp Stubenrauch, Brown, Chapman & Brown, and Garner & Walsh, on the brief), for plaintiff in error.

Nathan Frank, for defendant in error.

Before CALDWELL and SANBORN, Circuit Judges, and THAYER, District Judge.

THAYER District Judge.

This was a writ of error to reverse a judgment which was rendered on an interplea in an attachment suit. W. & J. Sloane, a corporation, brought suit by attachment against Isaac Wolf on the 7th of December, 1891, alleging, among other things, for the purpose of obtaining a writ of attachment, that Wolf 'had fraudulently conveyed or assigned his property and effects so as to hinder and delay his creditors.' The writ of attachment was levied on a stock of carpets mattings, and store fixtures at the time in the possession of James G. Adkins, the interpleader, and situated in a store at Nos. 1221 and 1223 North Main street, Kansas City, Mo. Under the provisions of section 572, Rev. St. Mo. 1889, Adkins filed an interplea claiming the property under a deed of trust in the nature of a mortgage, which had been executed by Wolf on November 30, 1891. The deed of trust purported to convey to Adkins, as trustee, the stock of merchandise which was attached, and certain real estate, and certain notes and accounts, for the common benefit of certain persons named in the deed, who are admitted to be creditors of Wolf, and his only creditors. The interplea alleged generally that Adkins as trustee, was the owner of, and was in possession of, the attached property when the same was seized, and that Wolf then had no interest in said property. The answer to the interplea averred, in substance, that the property belonged to Wolf when the writ of attachment was levied thereon, and that Adkins held the property at that time under and by virtue of a pretended deed of trust dated November 30, 1891 which had been made and executed by Wolf for the purpose of hindering, delaying, and defrauding his creditors, as the said interpleader well knew. The issues thus framed were tried before the court, pursuant to a stipulation waiving a jury; and the court rendered a judgment in favor of the attaching creditor, and against the interpleader. Subsequently, a judgment was rendered against Wolf in the sum of $5,960.98 on the plaintiff's cause of action, and a further order was entered, sustaining the attachment.

The parties to the interpleader suit filed a stipulation admitting certain facts, but the most important issues arising on the interplea, touching...