Aldrich v. Arnold

• Citation: 13 R.I. 655
• Parties: CLARENCE A. ALDRICH, Assignee, v. BYRON H. ARNOLD, Deputy Sheriff.
• Decision Date: 29 May 1882
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Rhode Island

13 R.I. 655

CLARENCE A. ALDRICH, Assignee, v. BYRON H. ARNOLD, Deputy Sheriff.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island.

May 29, 1882

An assignment of partnership property only will not avoid an attachment under Pub. Stat. R.I. cap. 237, § 12.

An attachment is avoided under this statute only when the assigning debtor can by his assignment convey the property under attachment.

Gardner v. Commercial National Bank, 13 R.I. 155 affirmed.

Property was attached on a writ which directed an attachment to the value of $900; the claim sued was larger than this sum.

Held, that the attachment lien would not be limited to $900.

TROVER. Heard by the court on an agreed statement of facts, jury trial being waived.

The facts agreed upon are as follows:

" That on and before the day of December, A. D. 1881 one Albert C. Greene, now deceased, and Edward C Allen, both of Providence, were copartners, carrying on the business of manufacturing jewelers in said Providence, under the firm name of Greene & Allen, and that on the day of December, A. D. 1881, said Greene died intestate.

That said firm was at this time insolvent, and was largely indebted to Louis Sussfeld et al., late copartners, as Sussfeld, Lorsch & Co., and William B. Wightman, hereinafter referred to, and others.

That on the 6th day of February, A. D. 1882, said Louis Sussfeld et al. sued out of the Supreme Court for Providence County a writ of attachment against said Edward C. Allen as surviving partner of said firm of Greene & Allen, based on said copartnership debt, in which the officer serving the same was directed in and by said writ to attach property to the value of $900, and in which the ad damnum was laid at $1,200, and that said writ was delivered to the defendant, Byron H. Arnold, a deputy sheriff for Providence County, for service, and on the same day served by the defendant, by attaching the property described in the plaintiff's declaration, all of which was property that belonged to said firm of Greene & Allen prior to its dissolution by the death of said Albert C. Greene, and then was the property of said Allen as surviving partner of said firm.

That said writ was afterwards duly entered in this court....

That on said 6th day of February, A. D. 1882, and after said attachment had been made, the said Edward C. Allen made an assignment of all the copartnership property of said late firm of Greene & Allen, and all that belonged to him as surviving partner of said firm, to the plaintiff in this case, which was duly recorded; a copy of which is hereto annexed, marked Exhibit A, and made a part hereof, and that William B. Wightman, administrator on the estate of said Albert C. Greene, assented to and approved of said assignment.

It is further agreed that at the time of the making of the above mentioned assignment said Edward C. Allen had no property of any kind beside such as was described in said assignment except such, other than debts secured by bills of exchange or negotiable promissory notes, as was exempted from attachment by statutes of this State and the United States, and that he had individual debts to the amount of about $1,000. That there was due and owing as wages of labor performed under said assignment the sum of about $100.

That on the 11th day of February, A. D. 1882, William B. Wightman sued out of this Honorable Court a writ of attachment against said Edward C. Allen, surviving partner as aforesaid, based on a copartnership debt, in which the officer serving the same was directed to attach property to the value of $15,000, the ad damnum being in the same amount, which said writ was delivered to the defendant for service, and by him served on the same day, by attaching the property described in the plaintiff's declaration, subject to said prior attachment in favor of Sussfeld, Lorsch & Co.

That said writ was duly entered in this court....

That on the 13th day of February, A. D. 1882, said Edward C. Allen made a general assignment to the plaintiff in this case for the equal benefit of all his creditors, which was duly recorded, a copy of which is hereto annexed, marked Exhibit B, and made a part hereof, and said Wightman, as administrator on Greene's estate, assented to it.

That afterward, and before the commencement of this suit, and before the sale hereinafter referred to, the plaintiff made a legal demand on the defendant for the goods and chattels described in his declaration, under and by virtue of each and both of said assignments, and that then and there the defendant refused to deliver up the same to him.

That all of said property was sold on the 23d day of February, A. D. 1882, at public auction, under and by virtue of an order of this court granted on the 11th day of February, A. D. 1882, for the sum of $1,400.

Under this statement of facts, if the attachment of Sussfeld, Lorsch & Co. was dissolved by either or both of said assignments, and the attachment of said Wightman was void or dissolved by said last assignment, and the order of said court is no defence, then judgment shall be entered for the plaintiff for $1,400 and costs.

If both attachments remain valid, the judgment shall be for the defendant for costs.

If the attachment of Sussfeld, Lorsch & Co. remains valid, can the officer hold more than $900 for them? If he cannot, and Wightman's attachment was void or dissolved, then judgment shall be for the plaintiff for $500.

If the defendant can hold more than $900 for Sussfeld, Lorsch & Co., and Wightman's attachment was void or dissolved, then the plaintiff may recover in this action the balance of said $1,400, after paying Sussfeld, Lorsch & Co.'s judgment, this amount to be determined hereafter."

EXHIBIT A.

" Know all men by these presents, that I, Edward C. Allen, of the city and County of Providence, in the State of Rhode Island, surviving partner of the late firm of Greene &amp Allen, which said firm was...