Benbow v. Kollom

• Decision Date: 24 February 1893
• Citation: 54 N.W. 482,52 Minn. 433
• Parties: BENBOW v KOLLOM ET AL.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

52 Minn. 433

54 N.W. 482

BENBOWvKOLLOM ET AL.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Feb. 24, 1893.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Evidence held to justify the conclusion that an order of the court made orally, in proceedings supplementary to execution, restraining a person named as a witness from disposing of certain personal property, did not subject him to liability for having disposed of the property, the evidence being indefinite as to the time when the order was made, and in other particulars.

Appeal from district court, Cottonwood county; Brown, Judge.

Action by William C. Benbow, receiver, etc., against H. S. Kollom and another, to declare fraudulent and void the transfer of a certain property to Kollom, and that defendants account for the property to plaintiff. The court found that the transfer was void, but that Kollom was not liable, and judgment was rendered accordingly. From an order refusing a new trial, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Rea & Hubachek, for appellant.

J. G. Redding, for respondents.

DICKINSON, J.

Appeal by the plaintiff from an order refusing a new trial. One Conrad recovered a judgment against J. C. Hunt, one of the defendants. Thereafter Hunt entered into a contract with the defendant Kollom, by the terms of which the former, being then insolvent, transferred to the latter a certain certificate of deposit, and a gold watch, in consideration of the agreement of the latter to support the former during his (Hunt's) life. This agreement was made for the purpose of defrauding Hunt's creditors. Proceedings supplementary to execution were afterwards instituted, and Hunt was required to appear before the judge of the district court for examination concerning his property. In the course of such supplementary proceedings the court made an order restraining Kollom from disposing of the certificate and watch, which order was directed to be served on him. It was so served on the 18th of August, but before that, and on the same day, Kollom had redelivered the property to Hunt, and the contract between them was rescinded. The plaintiff, Benbow, was afterwards appointed receiver of the property of Hunt, and, having demanded from Kollom a delivery of the property, he prosecutes this action against both Kollom and Hunt, seeking an adjudication that the transfer to Kollom was fraudulent and void; that the property be applied to the satisfaction of the judgment; and that the defendants account to the plaintiff for the property. Kollom was not, so far as appears, made a party to the...