Anheuser-Busch Brewing Ass'n v. Daviess County Distilling Co.

• Decision Date: 18 February 1899
• Citation: 49 S.W. 541
• Parties: ANHEUSER-BUSCH BREWING ASS'N v. DAVIESS COUNTY DISTILLING CO. et al. [1]
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

49 S.W. 541

ANHEUSER-BUSCH BREWING ASS'N v. DAVIESS COUNTY DISTILLING CO. et al. ^[1]

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

February 18, 1899

Appeal from circuit court, Daviess county.

"Not to be officially reported."

Action by Anheuser-Busch Brewing Association against Daviess County Distilling Company and J. S. Mullican, sheriff, to recover the possession of certain warehouse receipts held under attachment by the Glenmore Distilling Company. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff appeals, defendants prosecuting a cross appeal. Affirmed on original and cross appeal.

Powers & Atchison and Chas. Nagle, for appellant.

Wilfred Carrico and Eli H. Bunn, for appellee Glenmore Distilling Co.

WHITE J.

The appellant, the Anheuser-Busch Brewing Association, brought this action against the appellees, Daviess County Distilling Company and J. S. Mullican, sheriff of Daviess county seeking to recover the possession of certain warehouse receipts, 16 in number, covering 80 barrels of Kentucky Club whisky, issued by the Daviess County Distilling Company. The petition alleges: That the appellant was the bailee of said receipts from one P. H. Heffron, the owner thereof, and to whom they were issued, for the purpose of securing appellant in a claim of $1,200 due by Heffron to appellant, and also to secure a further loan of $3,800, then in negotiation, and for which note had been executed and delivered by Heffron, and that appellant was to investigate and satisfy itself that the receipts were genuine. That, for the purpose of this investigation, appellant addressed a letter of inquiry to appellee the Daviess County Distilling Company, giving numbers and dates of the receipts, and, after waiting several days and receiving no answer, sent a telegram of inquiry. To this telegraph message appellee answered to send the receipts for verification. That the receipts were sent as requested and, after some delay, appellant sent another telegram of inquiry, with a request to return receipts immediately. To this telegram appellee replied: "Warehouse receipts will reach you to-morrow, with full explanation." These receipts were carried by R. Monarch, the president of appellee, who refused and declined to deliver them to appellant, but kept them in his possession, and returned to Owensboro, Ky.; appellant's place of business being in St. Louis, Mo. After the return of R. Monarch with these receipts, the Glenmore Distilling Company, of which R Monarch is also president and almost sole owner, sued out an attachment against P. H. Heffron, and levied that attachment on these warehouse receipts in the hands of appellee Daviess County Distilling Company, of which R. Monarch is the president and almost sole owner. The petition also alleges that R. Monarch, as president of the Glenmore Distilling Company, made the affidavit for the attachment, and executed the bond for attachment, against P. H. Heffron; that this attachment was placed in the hands of appellee Mullican sheriff, who executed said order of attachment by delivering to R. Monarch, the president of appellee the Daviess County Distilling Company, a copy, and appellee Mullican attached the warehouse receipts in the hands of the Daviess County Distilling Company, which were readily and willingly exhibited to the sheriff by appellee distilling company. Appellant avers that the acts of appellee distilling company in refusing to answer its letters of inquiry, and in demanding the receipts for verification, and in refusing to return same, were all done for the fraudulent purpose and intention of obtaining possession of the warehouse receipts, and of bringing the receipts within the jurisdiction of the courts of Kentucky, in order that the Glenmore Distilling Company might levy an attachment thereon for the debt due that company by Heffron, and these acts were done by R. Monarch, president of both companies, and almost sole owner of both companies, and, if not by him in person, by his employés, under his direction. Appellant further alleged that a corporation, the Richelieu Wine Company, whose place of business is Chicago, Ill., and of which P. H. Heffron is manager, claims the possession of these warehouse receipts from appellant, for the reason, as is averred by the Richelieu Wine Company, that the 80 barrels of whisky, for which these receipts were issued, were bought by the funds of the wine company, and not by P. H. Heffron, and that the wine company permitted the receipts to be made in the name of Heffron for convenience merely; and the wine company avers that the debt of $1,200 secured, and the loan of $3,800 to be made, were the obligations of the Richelieu Wine Company, and were negotiated by Heffron as manager of the wine company, and not for himself, and that Heffron had no personal interest in said receipts. The appellant alleges that, as to the truth of these claims of the Richelieu Wine Company, it has no knowledge, but says that, if true, the attachment against Heffron levied on these receipts does not...