Beard v. Indianapolis Fancy Grocery Company
| Decision Date | 09 December 1913 |
| Docket Number | 22,520 |
| Parties | Beard v. Indianapolis Fancy Grocery Company |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
From Morgan Circuit Court; Will H. Pigg, Special Judge.
Action by the Indianapolis Fancy Grocery Company against Effie J. Beard and another. From a judgment against her only, the defendant, Effie J. Beard, appeals. (Transferred from the Appellate Court under § 1405 Burns 1908, Acts 1901 p. 590.)
Affirmed.
Albert Asche and McNutt & Bain, for appellant.
John E. Sedwick, for appellee.
Appellee sued appellant and her husband. There was a judgment against appellant only. The third paragraph of complaint sought to charge appellant with liability as a purchaser of a stock of goods in violation of the act of 1909 relating to bulk sales of merchandise. Acts 1909 p. 122.
It is contended that the court erred in overruling appellant's demurrer to the third paragraph because said statute violates the 14th amendment to the Federal Constitution. It is not open to such objection. Hirth-Krause Co. v. Cohen (1912), 177 Ind. 1, 97 N.E. 1; Rich v. C. Callahan Co. (1913), 179 Ind. 509, 101 N.E. 810.
It is also claimed that the statute violates the following provisions of § 22 of Art. 1, of our Constitution: "The privilege of the debtor to enjoy the necessary comforts of life shall be recognized by wholesome laws exempting a reasonable amount of property from seizure or sale for the payment of any debt or liability." In Rich v. C. Callahan Co., supra, it was held that the act in question evinces no legislative intent to affect any debtor exemption law. Were it otherwise appellant's contention could not prevail, because the above provision of our Constitution is not self-executing, but requires legislative enactment to make it effective. Green v. Aker (1858), 11 Ind. 223; Moss v. Jenkins (1897), 146 Ind. 589, 45 N.E. 789.
The finding of the court is sufficiently supported by the evidence, and the record discloses no error. Judgment affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gazett v. Iola Co-Op. Mercantile Co.
...our law, it was upheld in Hirth Krause Co. v. Cohen, 177 Ind. 1, 97 N. E. 1, Ann. Cas. 1914C, 708, reaffirmed in Beard v. Ind. F. Groc. Co., 180 Ind. 536, 103 N. E. 404. In Illinois, after the two cases, supra, the law was amended in 1913 (Laws 1913, p. 258) to meet the objections suggested......
-
Branham v. Varble
...of fraud.This provision is not self-executing, but requires legislative enactment to make it effective. Beard v. Indianapolis Fancy Grocery Co., 180 Ind. 536, 103 N.E. 404 (1913). The Branhams direct us to Ind.Code Ann. § 24-4.5-5-105(2)(b) (West,Westlaw through 2010 2nd Regular Sess.), whi......
-
Branham v. Varble, 62A04-1004-SC-256
...of fraud. This provision is not self-executing, but requires legislative enactment to make it effective. Beard v. Indianapolis Fancy Grocery Co., 180 Ind. 536, 103 N.E. 404 (1913). The Branhams direct us to Ind. Code Ann. § 24-4.5-5-105(2)(b) (West, Westlaw through 2010 2nd Regular Sess.), ......
-
Branham v. Varble
...of fraud. This provision is not self-executing, but requires legislative enactment to make it effective. Beard v. Indianapolis Fancy Grocery Co., 180 Ind. 536, 103 N.E. 404 (1913). The Branhams direct us to Ind. Code Ann. § 24-4.5-5-105(2)(b) (West, Westlaw through 2010 2nd Regular Sess.), ......