Balch v. Wilson

Decision Date04 October 1878
Citation25 Minn. 299
PartiesFOSTER L. BALCH, Receiver, <I>vs.</I> EUGENE M. WILSON and another.
CourtMinnesota Supreme Court

That on April 16, 1877, the bank, desiring a release of the levy and a dismissal of the supplementary proceedings, and an extension of time for payment of the judgment, agreed with Kimball that in consideration of such release, dismissal and extension, it would join with Tidd & Fales in executing to Kimball three promissory notes for $1100 each, dated April 16, 1877, and payable, respectively, twelve, fifteen and eighteen months thereafter. Pursuant to the agreement, the notes were made by Tidd & Fales payable to their own order, were endorsed by the cashier of the bank, as such, and afterwards delivered by the bank to Kimball, who caused the levy to be released, the other proceedings to be dismissed, and the judgment to be satisfied. That prior to the commencement of this action, Kimball, for a good consideration, assigned one-half of the notes to his codefendant Wilson, and that no part of the notes has been paid. That a claim for the amount of the notes was duly made upon the plaintiff as receiver, at the time and in the manner required by law, and was by him disallowed; that the assets of the bank are insufficient to pay its indebtedness, and there will be nothing left to pay these notes when their validity as claims against the bank may have been established by action at law; and that Tidd & Fales are insolvent and can pay no part of the notes.

The defendants pray judgment that so much of their demand as may be necessary be set off against plaintiff's demand in payment of the same, and for general relief. A demurrer to the answer was sustained by Young, J., and the defendants appealed.

Wilson & Lawrence, for appellants.

Atwater & Babcock, for respondent.

CORNELL, J.

The note sued on was a joint note of the defendants given to the bank, dated on April 18, 1877, and payable one month after its date. The bank was put into the hands of the receiver, under the national banking law, on May 29, 1877, which was after the maturity of said note. Giving to the averments of the answer the most favorable construction claimed by defendants, the three several notes set up as a ground for the equitable relief sought, originated in the settlement of a transaction between the defendant Kimball alone, and the bank and Tidd & Fales. Said notes were given to Kimball by the bank and Tidd & Fales, as...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • St. Paul & M. Trust Co. v. Leck
    • United States
    • Minnesota Supreme Court
    • April 20, 1894
    ...create a preference after the assignment which under the terms of the statute could not stand if made before the assignment. Balch v. Wilson, 25 Minn. 299; v. Wickham, 135 N.Y. 223; Laybourn v. Seymour, 53 Minn. 105. There are decisions under the National Bankrupt Law which appear to hold a......
  • Kennedy v. Boston-Continental Nat. Bank
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts
    • July 16, 1935
    ...this inference. Merrill v. National Bank of Jacksonville, 173 U. S. 131, 19 S. Ct. 360, 365, 43 L. Ed. 640; Balch, Receiver, v. Eugene M. Wilson, 25 Minn. 299, 33 Am. Rep. 467. In the Merrill Case, the Court distinctly stated: "The distribution is to be `ratable' on the claims as proved or ......
  • St. Paul & M. Trust Co. v. Leck
    • United States
    • Minnesota Supreme Court
    • April 20, 1894
    ...create a preference after the assignment which under the terms of the statute could not stand if made before the assignment. Balch v. Wilson, 25 Minn. 299; Fera v. Wickham, 135 N. Y. 223; Laybourn v. Seymour, 53 Minn. 105. There are decisions under the National Bankrupt Law which appear to ......
  • Veigel v. Converse
    • United States
    • Minnesota Supreme Court
    • October 1, 1926
    ...general creditors, upon the principle of equality. No subsequent lien can be created, or right or preference obtained." Balch v. Wilson, 25 Minn. 299, 33 Am. Rep. 467. That rule prevents the set-off attempted in these cases. The opposing argument is that, inasmuch as between the bank as pri......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT