Bamberger v. Terry
| Decision Date | 01 October 1880 |
| Parties | BAMBERGER v. TERRY |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
ERROR to the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Connecticut.
The parties to this action having stipulated in writing that it should be tried by the court, the following facts were found by it to have been proven:——
On or about Aug. 12, 1875, the firm of S. A. Castle & Co., of the city of New York, consisting of Samuel A. Castle, Rufus E. Hitchcock, and Henry S. McGrane, being insolvent, made an assignment of all their goods and effects, for the joint and equal benefit of their creditors, under the statute of New York of April 13, 1860, to Leopold Bamberger, of that city, who accepted the trust, gave bonds according to law, and entered upon his duties Aug. 12, 1875.
Previously to this time the firm had been the selling agents in that city of the United States Button Company, a jointstock corporation, duly incorporated in pursuance of the laws of Connecticut, and established in Waterbury. The firm had in their store on Aug. 12, 1875, the manufactured goods of the company theretofore sent for sale upon commission to large amount, and being the property of the company. Their market value was $7,500. The company had not been in the habit of drawing against its consignments, but prior to that date had obtained from Castle & Co. their accommodation acceptances to the amount of $22,500; and it was agreed between the parties at the time when the acceptances were given that the firm should have, as security against their liability upon them, a lien on the goods which were from time to time unsold. These acceptances had been discounted for the benefit of the company, and were then held and owned by the Waterbury National Bank.
The goods of the company in the possession of Castle & Co. were specified in their inventory, which was duly made and filed, in pursuance of the laws of New York, under the head of 'Goods on hand on which allowances have been made, and merchandise in stock,' &c., as 'consigned by the United States Button Co.,' and were appraised at $6,054. The assignee thus had notice of the ownership of the goods. He immediately took possession of them as his own, and as equitably belonging to the creditors of Castle & Co., and proceeded forthwith to sell them as rapidly as he was able for the benefit of the estate. On Sept. 24, 1875, the company took up and received the acceptances from the Weterbury National Bank by the substitution of the company's notes therefor; and thereupon the president of the company carried said acceptances to New York, tendered them to Bamberger, and demanded of him the goods belonging to the company, but he refused to deliver the same, and continued the sale thereof.
The Superior Court of New Haven County, on or about Nov. 1, 1875, appointed Terry, the plaintiff, receiver of the estate of the Button Company, and authorized him, by its decree, to execute the powers specified in the General Statutes of Connecticut. He accepted said trust, gave bonds pursuant to law, which were accepted by the court, and entered upon his duties.
Nov. 24, 1875, the plaintiff, accompanied by the secretary of the company as a witness, again tendered the acceptances to Bamberger, in the city of New York, and demanded the goods as the property of the Button Company. Bamberger refused to deliver them. The plaintiff then asked him if there were any other acceptances outstanding against the goods, or if there were any other claims or charges against the goods for interest, commission, &c., except the tendered drafts, to which inquiry Bamberger replied in the negative. Upon the payment of said accommodation acceptances, Castle & Co. were indebted to the Button Company in a large amount, as appeared by the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Neal v. Drainage Dist. No. 2 of Ada County
... ... S., 262, 264; Perego v. Dodge, 163 ... U.S. 160, 16 S.Ct. 971, 41 L.Ed. 113; Lindstrom v. Hope ... Lumber Co., 12 Idaho 714, 88 P. 92; Bamberger v ... Terry, 103 U.S. 40, 26 L.Ed. 317; Wayne County Supr ... v. Kennicott, 103 U.S. 554, 26 L.Ed. 486; Lanahan v ... Heaver, 77 Md. 605, 26 A ... ...
-
McDonald v. State of Nebraska
...11 How. 480, 14 L.Ed. 835; Parks v. Turner, 12 How. 39, 13 L.Ed. 883; Tilton v. Cofeild, 93 U.S. 163, 23 L.Ed. 858; Bamberger v. Terry, 103 U.S. 40, 26 L.Ed. 317; Dow v. Humbert, 91 U.S. 294-297, 23 L.Ed. Construction Co. v. Seymour, 91 U.S. 646-655, 23 L.Ed. 341; Hardin v. Boyd, 113 U.S. 7......
-
Bowden v. Burnham
...Bank & Trust Co. v. Batchelder Egg-Case Co., 4 U.S. App. 603, 2 C. C. A. 126, and 51 F. 130; Erstein v. Rothschild, 22 F. 61; Bamberger v. Terry, 103 U.S. 40; Dow Humbert, 91 U.S. 294, 297; Construction Co. v. Seymour, Id. 646, 655; Hardin v. Boyd, 113 U.S. 756, 5 S.Ct. 771; Tiernan's Ex'rs......
-
HF Wilcox Oil & Gas Co. v. Skidmore
...For the rule that pleadings may be amended to conform to the proof, within the discretion of the trial court, see: Bamberger v. Terry, 103 U. S. 40, 43, 44, 26 L. Ed. 317; Ford Motor Co. v. Chas. A. Myers Mfg. Co. (C. C. A. 6) 64 F.(2d) 942, 943; Walker Grain Co. et al. v. Southwestern Tele......