Black v. Palmer

• Decision Date: 21 October 1957
• Docket Number: Gen. No. 47106
• Citation: 15 Ill.App.2d 207,145 N.E.2d 797
• Parties: Roe C. BLACK, R. A. Culpepper, G. W. Parker, R. D. Brown, et al., individually and as representatives of all creditors and stockholders of Black Ranches, Inc., a corporation, Appellants, v. John M. PALMER et al., Appellees.
• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois

Page 797

145 N.E.2d 797

15 Ill.App.2d 207

Roe C. BLACK, R. A. Culpepper, G. W. Parker, R. D. Brown, et

al., individually and as representatives of all

creditors and stockholders of Black

Ranches, Inc., a corporation, Appellants, v. John M. PALMER et al., Appellees.

Gen. No. 47106.

Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, First Division.

Oct. 21, 1957.

As Modified on Denial of Rehearing Nov. 13, 1957.

William C. Wines, Chicago, for appellants.

Thomas H. Alcock, Chicago, for John M. Palmer.

Sidley, Austin, Burgess & Smith, Chicago, for Marlon Brando, Jr., Henry A. Preston, Chicago, of counsel.

ROBSON, Judge.

Plaintiffs appeal from an order striking an amendment to their complaint and dismissing the action with prejudice. By their complaint in chancery they seek to establish and enforce a trust under which they assert a variety of claims for equitable relief, including the right to maintain a stockholder's derivative suit. The question fundamental to this action is whether or not plaintiffs are beneficiaries of a trust for the benefit of creditors.

On April 14, 1952, Roe R. Black and Avis C. Black, owners of all the capital stock of Black Ranches, Inc., a Nebraska corporation, conveyed their stock to J. A. Cobbey, as trustee. The agreement was oral and the transfer of the stock took place in Chicago. New certificates of stock were issued to Cobbey in his own name. The record indicates that Cobbey made subsequent written acknowledgment that he held the stock as trustee for the creditors and stockholders of the corporation of Black Ranches, Inc. These writings, executed only by Cobbey, recited that he held the stock 'for the purpose of conserving the assets of Black Ranches, Inc. for the repayment of the creditors of said corporation,' and that he had no beneficial ownership in the stock. The purpose of the stock transfer was apparently to give Cobbey control of the corporation and the ultimate power to supervise its management be exercise of the voting rights in the stock. The record fails to reveal the financial status of Black Ranches, Inc. at the time of the transfer of stock from the Blacks to Cobbey. In November, 1954, a petition was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska for the reorganization of Black Ranches, Inc. Prior to the filing of the amended complaint in the instant case, the United States District Court for Nebraska appointed a trustee in bankruptcy to administer the property of Black Ranches, Inc.

Plaintiff Black claims to be a creditor of the corporation for cash advances, car expenses, and unpaid salary which became due to him at various times between October, 1949, and September, 1951. The total amount of his claim is $2,027.14. Plaintiffs Culpepper, Parker and Brown operate a veterinary service and claims an unpaid balance of $1,187.13 on an open account for services rendered between November, 1950, and September, 1952. Neither of these claims was reduced to judgment.

Defendants are J. A. Cobbey, John M. Palmer, Marlon Brando, Sr. and Marlon Brando, Jr., Cobbey is the alleged trustee for the creditors and stockholders of Black Ranches, Inc. Palmer and Brando, Senior, were officers and directors of the corporation prior to the commencement of this action. Brando, Junior, is a judgment creditor of the corporation.

This action was filed and service was had only upon defendants Palmer and Brando, Junior. Defendants moved to strike the complaint. Their motion was granted with leave to plaintiffs to amend. Plaintiffs filed an amendment and a motion to strike was again allowed. The complaint in both its original and amended form alleges that plaintiffs, as creditors of Black Ranches Inc., are beneficiaries of a trust for creditors and also stockholders of the corporation, inasmuch as the res of the trust of which they claim to be beneficiaries consists of the stock of Black Ranches, Inc. They seek to establish and enforce the trust and assert any claims accruing to the equitable stockholders of Black Ranches, Inc.

Plaintiffs contend that the transfer of stock from Roe R. Black and Avis C. Black to Cobbey created a trust in the nature of an assignment for the benefit of creditors. Defendants argue that the complaint, as amended, does not set forth the factual basis for the maintenance of the action as a stockholder's derivative suit, a creditors' bill, or a suit by the beneficiaries of a trust to enforce the trust.

A trust for the benefit of creditors as a class is recognized in equity under the theory that a failing or insolvent debtor may assign all or a portion of his property to a third party as trustee for the purpose of paying the creditors from a distribution of the proceeds received upon a sale of the res. Weber v. Mick, 1890, 131 Ill. 520, 23 N.E. 646; Tribune Co. v. Canger Floral Co., 1941, 312 Ill.App. 149, 37 N.E.2d 906. Trusts of this nature are commonly known as assignments for the benefit of creditors and have an early history in the law of this State. See Cross v. Bryant, 1839, 2 Scam. 36. In so far as creditors are concerned, the alleged trust must stand or fall under the rules applicable to common law assignments for the benefit of creditors.

From 1877 until 1939 there was a statute in Illinois governing voluntary assignments for the benefit of creditors. (See Ill.Rev.Stat.1937, ch. 10 3/4). The statute required that the assignee file an inventory of the property and its valuation, that he give a bond to the State for twice the value of the property, that he give notice to the creditors named by the assignor, and that he submit a list to the county court of those creditors making claims under the assignment. See Ill.Rev.Stat.1937, ch. 10 3/4, secs. 2, 3, 4. Prior to this statutory regulation the courts gave close scrutiny to the powers vested in the assignee by the instrument of assignment. Where the powers of the assignee were clearly limited to a disposition in the best interests of the creditors the trust was valid. Sackett v. Mansfield, 1861, 26 Ill. 21; Whipple v. Pope, 1864, 33 Ill. 334; Blow v. Gage, 1857, 44 Ill. 208. However, where the assignee could sell on credit, was free from liability on all but willful defaults, or could fix the rights of the creditors at will, the trust was invalid. Nesbitt v. Digby, 1851, 13 Ill. 387; McIntire v. Benson, 1858, 20 Ill. 500; Bowen v. Parkhurst, 1860, 24 Ill. 257. The statute rendered void any provision in an assignment giving preference to one debt over another. Ill.Rev.Stat.1937, ch. 10 3/4 sec. 13. At common law a preference of creditors in an assignment was valid. Cross v. Bryant, supra; Howell v. Edgar, 1842, 3 Scam. 417; Hudson v. Maze, 1842, 3 Scam. 578. The legal effect of the statute prior to its revocation in 1939 was suspended by the National Bankruptcy Act of 1898, 11 U.S.C.A. § 1 et seq. Pogue v. Rowe, 1908, 236 Ill. 157, 86 N.E. 207; Danville Auburn Auto Co. v. National Trust & Credit Co., 1918, 212 Ill.App. 116; International Shoe Co. v. Cline, 1935, 279 Ill.App. 601.

While the statute suspended the common law its effect was merely to modify and regulate existing common law rights. J. Walter Thompson Co. v. Whitehed, 1900, 185 Ill. 454, 461, 462, 56 N.E. 1106; Union Trust Co. v. Trumbull, 1891, 137 Ill. 146, 158, 27 N.E. 24. As indicated heretofore the act made definite and certain the regulations which were to govern the powers of the trustee. The act modified the common law rule with respect to preference. However, the act merely incorporated the existing common law rule that a written instrument was essential to the creation of a valid common law assignment for the benefit of creditors.

The first section of the statute provided that every debtor making an assignment should annex to the assignment an inventory of his property and a list of his creditors together with the amount of their claims. It provided further that every assignment should be acknowledged and recorded. See Ill.Rev.Stat.1937, ch. 10 3/4, sec. 1. In Price v. Laing, 1894, 152 Ill. 380, at page 385, 38 N.E. 921, at page 922, it was held that a parol assignment of property was not a voluntary assignment for the benefit of creditors within the contemplation of the act, stating the necessity for a written instrument as follows:

'The declaration of trust is as much an essential part of an assignment for the benefit of creditors as is the conveyance or transfer of property. It, of course, needs no citation of authorities to show that the title to personal property, goods, and chattels may be transferred by parol and without any writing, and may be proved by oral testimony. The claim and the logic of appellants would lead to this result: that a writing is not essential to establish either the transfer of title or the declaration of trust, and therefore neither is a prerequisite to a valid assignment for the benefit of creditors, and such an assignment may rest wholly in parol. A result such as this is not in consonance with the common understanding and practice in the mercantile and business community, with the doctrine laid down in the books, with the adjudged cases, or with the evident intent of the legislature as indicated by the provisions of the act.'

In Farwell v. Nilsson, 1890, 133 Ill. 45, at page 49, 24 N.E. 74, at page 75, the court defined the meaning of the word assignment, its form, and contents as understood in the law of this State at the time of the adoption of the Act:

'The word 'assignment' had, at the time this statute was adopted, a well defined meaning, understood by all the people, and it has no different meaning in said act. * * * 'According to the common acceptation of the term, it is a transfer without...