Campbell v. Jackson

• Decision Date: 03 June 1891
• Citation: 49 N.W. 121,80 Wis. 48
• Parties: CAMPBELL ET AL. v. JACKSON.
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

80 Wis. 48

49 N.W. 121

CAMPBELL ET AL.

v.JACKSON.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

June 3, 1891.

Appeal from circuit court, Waupaca county; CHARLES M. WEBB, Judge.

It appears from the record that October 30, 1889, the plaintiffs, constituting the firm of Campbell Bros. & Cameron, commenced this action against the defendant to recover $750, and interest thereon, on an express contract; that at the time of the commencement of the action one of the plaintiffs made an affidavit for an attachment therein, and which, as amended, stated as the ground thereof, in effect, that the defendant had assigned, conveyed, disposed of, or concealed, or was about to assign, convey, dispose of, or conceal, his property, or part thereof, with intent to defraud his creditors; that thereupon a writ of attachment was issued therein, and personal property of the defendant attached, to the value, as appraised, of $317.42; that November 16, 1889, the said defendant therein, by special answer duly verified, served, and filed, duly traversed said affidavit of attachment, and therein, in effect, denied the existence, at the time of making said affidavit, of any and all the material facts therein stated; that the issue so raised on such traverse was tried by the court, and upon the trial thereof the court found in favor of the defendant, and sustained such traverse, and set aside and vacated such writ of attachment; and from the order vacating and setting aside the same the plaintiffs bring this appeal.Hicks, Phillips & Kleist, for appellants.

Cate, Jones & Sanborn, for respondent.

CASSODAY, J., ( after stating the facts as above.)

The ground alleged for the attachment was, in effect, that the chattel mortgage given by the defendant to Dick & Berkley, April 15, 1886, the additions thereto, and the renewal thereof in April, 1888, were in fact made by Jackson with the intent to defraud his creditors. The testimony taken in the case of Campbell v. Dick, 49 N. W. Rep. 120, (decided herewith,) so far as applicable, was stipulated into this case on the trial of the issue raised by the traverse of the affidavit for the attachment. Both trials were had befor the same presiding judge; and his findings as to the bona fides of the mortgage so given to Dick & Berkley, the additions thereto, and the renewal thereof, virtually dispose of the same questions in favor of the defendant in this case. In fact, the little additional testimony taken in this case confirmed the finding that...