Daniels v. Pacific Brewing & Malting Co.

Decision Date29 July 1915
Docket Number12254.
Citation150 P. 609,86 Wash. 416
CourtWashington Supreme Court
PartiesDANIELS v. PACIFIC BREWING & MALTING CO.

Department 2. Appeal from Superior Court, Whatcom County; William H Pemberton, Judge.

Action by F. E. Daniels against H. Dillon and Pat Milan, and the Pacific Brewing & Malting Company, as garnishee. From a judgment for the garnishee, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Craven & Greene, of Bellingham, for appellant.

S. M Bruce, of Bellingham, for respondent.

CROW J.

An action was commenced by plaintiff, F. E. Daniels, as assignee of Ferdinand Westheimer & Sons, a Missouri corporation against Pat Milan and H. Dillon, to recover the purchase price of liquors sold between January 1, and October 2, 1908. In November, 1908, judgment was entered in plaintiff's favor, upon which garnishment proceedings were instituted forthwith against the Pacific Brewing & Malting Company, a corporation, as garnishee defendant. From a judgment in the garnishee's favor the plaintiff has appealed.

The facts which are stipulated, in substance, show that on or about November 19, 1907, Pat Milan and H. Dillon engaged in the saloon business at Lynden, Wash.; that for use in such business they borrowed $2,250 from the respondent Pacific Brewing & Malting Company; that as evidence of such loan they executed and delivered to respondent notes maturing monthly, 10 for 200 each, and 1 for $250; that to secure the same they also executed and delivered to respondent a chattel mortgage upon their stock and fixtures in the saloon; that the mortgage by its terms secured all subsequent indebtedness, and covered all additional stock and property which they might bring into the saloon business; that the mortgage was recorded in the manner provided by law; that Milan and Dillon continued in business until October 2, 1908, prior to which time they had become indebted to respondent in the further sum of $456.15 for beer purchased; that only $600 had been paid on the original indebtedness; that on October 2, 1908, Milan and Dillon, in settlement of their indebtedness to respondent corporation, executed and delivered to it a bill of sale for all property covered by the mortgage and used in connection with their saloon business, the consideration being 'the release of any personal obligation and the discharge of any claim for indebtedness held by the buyer against the seller;' that from the date of the mortgage to the date of the bill of sale, Milan and Dillon had made sales in their saloon business exceeding $7,500; that shortly after the respondent corporation received the bill of sale, it disposed of the property to a third party, and that the indebtedness which respondent released, together with expenses which it incurred, exceeded the value of the property covered by the mortgage and bill of sale.

Appellant...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Rodgers v. Boise Ass'n of Credit Men, Ltd.
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • 28 Febrero 1921
    ... ... Victor v. Glover, 17 Wash. 37, 48 P. 788, 40 L. R ... A. 297; Daniels v. P. Brewing & Malting Co., 86 ... Wash. 416, 150 P. 609; McAvoy v ... ...
  • Slow v. Ohio Valley Roofing Company
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court
    • 29 Junio 1926
    ... ... & Co. v ... Brink (1915), 187 Mich. 43, 153 N.W. 359; ... Daniels v. Pacific Brewing, etc., Co ... (1915), 86 Wash. 416, 150 P. 609; Avery ... ...
  • Slow v. Ohio Valley Roofing Co.
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court
    • 29 Junio 1926
    ...v. Gillon (1912) 90 Neb. 730, 134 N. W. 278;Symons Bros. & Co. v. Brink (1915) 187 Mich. 43, 153 N. W. 359;Daniels v. Pacific Brewing & M. Co. (1915) 86 Wash. 416, 150 P. 609;Avery & Sons v. Carter (1916) 18 Ga. App. 527, 89 S. E. 1051;Mills v. Sullivan (1916) 222 Mass. 587, 111 N. E. 605;S......
  • Hull v. Minkler
    • United States
    • Washington Supreme Court
    • 2 Enero 1958
    ...prevent the perpetration of fraud on creditors. Plass v. Morgan, 1904, 36 Wash. 160, 78 P. 784. The dicta in Daniels v. Pacific Brewing & Malting Co., 1915, 86 Wash. 416, 150 P. 609, is not persuasive. We hold that the transfer from Glen Minkler to Victor Minkler was within the purview of t......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT