Beach v. Miller

Decision Date19 January 1888
Citation14 N.E. 698
PartiesBEACH et al. v. MILLER.
CourtIllinois Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Appeal from appellate court, Second district.

This was an action of trespass, brought by Joseph F. Miller against Thomas S. Beach and George Keefer. In the circuit court judgment was rendered for the plaintiff, which judgment was affirmed by the appellate court. The defendant now appeals from the affirmance by the appellate court.

Weigley, Bulkley & Gray, for appellants.

Bennett & Green, for appellee.

MAGRUDER, J.

This is an action of trespass, begun on April 26, 1886, by the appellee against the appellants, in the circuit court of Whiteside county. The verdict and judgment were in favor of the plaintiff, for $1,996.41. The judgment has been affirmed by the appellate court of the Second district, and the case is brought before us by appeal from the latter court. The first and second counts of the declaration are trespass quare clausum fregit for breaking and entering two rooms in the warehouse of the Rock River Packing Company, at Sterling, Illinois, of which two rooms plaintiff claimed to be in possession, etc. The third and fourth counts are trespass de bonis asportatis for taking and carrying away 94,612 tomato cans; tomato caps, 607 1/2 pounds; 3,516 sheets of tin plate, 14x20; 180 strips of tin, etc.,-all alleged to be the property of the plaintiff. The first plea is the general issue. The second, third, and fourth pleas set up, in justification, that Beach is sheriff and Keefer is deputy-sheriff of Whiteside county; that, on October 23, 1885, E. W. Blatchford & Co. recovered judgment for $1,415.40, and costs, in the circuit court of said county, against the Rock River Packing Company; that, under an execution issued on the same day upon such judgment, Keefer, as deputy-sheriff, entered the warehouse of the Rock River Packing Company, and levied upon the goods and chattels above described, and, on January 20, 1886, after due notice, sold the same at sheriff's sale and realized $1,062.50, etc.; that the goods levied upon were the property of the packing company, and in its warehouse, etc. The fifth and sixth pleas set up by the same judgment, execution, levy, and sale, as a justification for entering the two rooms in question, and allege that said rooms were the close, and in the possession, of the packing company, and that, at the time the supposed trespass in alleged to have been committed, said company was the owner in fee of said rooms, and in the lawful possession and occupancy thereof.

Replications were filed, in one of which it was averred that the two rooms were the close of the plaintiff, Miller, and not of the packing company, and in another of which it was averred that the property levied upon was the property of the plaintiff, Miller, and not of the packing company. The questions presented by the pleadings are these: Did the defendants below, who are appellants here, have the right to enter the two rooms in question, and levy upon the goods there stored as the property of the Rock River Packing Company, or did they commit a trespass by so doing? Were the two rooms lawfully in the possession of the appellee, who was plaintiff below, or were they lawfully in the possession of the defendant in the execution? Were the goods levied upon the lawful property, and in the lawful possession, of the plaintiff below, or of the Rock River Packing Company?

Some of the facts which the evidence tends to establish may be referred to in order to understand the ruling of the trial court, which is hereafter commented upon. The Rock River Packing Company was a corporation, organized, in 1881, under the laws of Illinois. Its principal office was located at Sterling. The object for which it was formed was ‘the packing, pickling, canning, and bottling of meats, vegetables, and fruits, and dealing in the same.’ The original incorporators were James A. Ingersoll, Edward H. Sears, William N. Harrison, and Joseph T. Miller, the latter being the appellee herein. These four persons were the active directors in October, 1885. Ingersoll was at that time president and secretary; he had been secretary for two years, and had been president since the organization of the corporation. Ingersoll and the appellee, Miller, had been directors from the time the company was formed. In May, July, and August, 1885, three judgment notes, one for $1,000, and two for $500 each, were given by the packing company to the appellee, the latter being then a stockholder and director. They were signed as follows: ‘ROCK RIVER PACKING CO. [Seal] By J. A. INGERSOLL, Pres. & Sec'y.’ On the evening of October 16, 1885, Ingersoll and Miller were riding on the cars from Chicago to Sterling, and it was then and there agreed between them that 80,000 cans, included in those afterwards levied upon, should be turned over by the company to Miller, at a valuation of $1,877, and should be applied on the notes. The train arrived at Sterling at 8 o'clock in the evening, and they went to the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • National Tube Works Company v. Ring Refrigerating and Ice Machine Company
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • December 4, 1893
    ...all noticed under first point; Union Bank v. Douglas, 1 McCrary, 86, merely holds that assets of corporation are trust fund; Beach v. Miller, 14 N.E. 698, holds officers of corporation cannot make wholesale distribution of assets among themselves; no one contends that they can; Mfg. Co. v. ......
  • Lowry Banking Co. v. Empire Lumber Co.
    • United States
    • Georgia Supreme Court
    • May 2, 1893
    ...absence of fraud, and there seemed to be no occasion to criticise the conduct of the directors in any other respect. In Beach v. Miller, (III. Sup.) 14 N.E. 698, we the following language: "The officers of a corporation in an insolvent condition cannot make a wholesale distribution of all i......

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