Bogard v. Tyler's Adm'r
Decision Date | 10 March 1900 |
Citation | 55 S.W. 709,119 Ky. 637 |
Parties | BOGARD v. TYLER'S ADM'R et al. [1] |
Court | Kentucky Court of Appeals |
Appeal from circuit court, Trigg county.
"Not to be officially reported."
Action by J. D. Tyler's administrator and others against W. A Bogard and William Parks. Judgment sustaining attachments and defendant W. A. Bogard appeals. Reversed.
Fenton Sims, for appellant, Bogard. Robt. Cranshaw, for appellees McBride and others. R. A. Burnett, for appellees Tyler's administrator and another.
DU RELLE, J.
It appears that William Parks, who was engaged in operating a portable sawmill, on July 17, 1893, entered into a contract with W. A. Bogard, as follows: Under this contract, a large quantity of lumber, approximating 300,000 feet, was, from time to time, cut and delivered on the bank of the Cumberland river, and it is claimed a large sum of money was advanced to Parks by Bogard. The lumber was being loaded on barges for transportation to market, under the supervision of Bogard, at the time Fuqua and Tyler brought attachment suits, the attachments in which were levied upon this lumber. Soon after, a number of persons who had performed labor in the sawmill, and others who had sold standing timber to Parks, brought suit, claiming liens under section 2487, Ky. St., as having been the employés of Parks in the business, and as having furnished materials for the carrying on of the business; it being claimed that the sawmill was a manufacturing establishment, within the meaning of the section, and that practically the property of the owner of the establishment had come to be distributed among creditors by operation of law. The lien claimed was also sought to be justified by reason of an agreement between Bogard, Parks, and the attaching creditors, whereby Bogard was permitted to take the lumber to market and dispose of it to the best advantage he could, the proceeds to stand in lieu of the lumber. The various suits were consolidated, the issues made up, and, on final...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Sanders v. Quercus Lumber Company
... ... It ... falls within the purview of Sec. 7828, R. S. 1909. Bogard ... v. Tyler, 55 S.W. 709-905; Rabe v. Consoldated Ice ... Co., 113 F. 905; Carlin v. Western ... ...
-
Central Trust Co. of Illinois v. George Lueders & Co.
... ... Magann Fawke Lumber Co., 118 Ky. 192, ... 80 S.W. 799, 4 Ann.Cas. 1026, and in Bogard v ... Tyler, 119 Ky. 637, 55 S.W. 709, it was held that a ... sawmill was a manufacturing ... ...
-
In re I. Rheinstrom & Sons Co.
...it was assumed that the statute covered all manufacturing establishments, and hence the particular establishment involved therein. In Bogard v. Tyler question was expressly raised and determined that the statute covered a sawmill. Judge Du Relle said: 'Numerous questions are made as to the ......
-
Comm'r of Corps. & Taxation v. Bd. of Assessors of Boston
...and the resulting product than has been effected in the instant case has been held to constitute manufacturing. Bogard v. Tyler's Administrator, 119 Ky. 637, 55 S.W. 709;State v. A. W. Wilbert's Sons Lumber & Shingle Co., 51 La.Ann. 1223, 26 So. 106;Drennan v. Stone, 190 Miss. 874, 1 So.2d ......