Dole v. Olmstead
| Decision Date | 30 April 1864 |
| Citation | 85 Am.Dec. 397,1864 WL 3117,36 Ill. 150 |
| Parties | CHARLES S. DOLE et al.v.JOHN D. OLMSTEAD and THOMAS HERFORD.1 |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
APPEAL from Circuit Court of La Salle County.
Bill in chancery filed by appellees against appellants.
The case is sufficiently stated in the opinion.
Leland & Blanchard, for appellants.
Glover, Cook & Campbell, for Cushman, True & Co.
Gray, Avery & Bushnell, for other appellees.
It appears that Fairfield & Weld were engaged as partners in the business of warehousemen, and in buying, selling and storing grain. During the continuance of their business, they became indebted to appellants in the sum of about $9,000, upon which a judgment was obtained by Martin, we suppose as assignee, in December, 1859, which he assigned to appellants. Execution was sued out on this judgment, and placed in the hands of the sheriff of La Salle county, on the 22d day of December, 1859. On the day previous, Fairfield & Weld, to secure this indebtedness, assigned, transferred and delivered the corn then in store in their warehouse and cribs, as well as certain contracts entered into by them, with divers persons, for the purchase of corn, upon a portion of which Fairfield & Weld had advanced some money, and had received a part of the corn. That in receiving and storing corn on commission, as well as their own, Fairfield & Weld, as is customary with grain warehousemen, stored all together, without discrimination, not having kept any individual's portion separate from the other.
As assignees of Fairfield & Weld, appellants went into possession, and delivered corn in store on the grain receipts of Fairfield & Weld, or in lieu of such a delivery, purchased their receipts from holders. They likewise received corn on the contracts entered into by Fairfield & Weld, which seems to have been placed in common mass in store. Cushman, True & Co., holding receipts for corn stored with Fairfield & Weld, brought an action of replevin, for about 7,000 bushels of corn, against the sheriff of La Salle county, who had levied the execution placed in his hands on the 22d day of December, upon the corn found in possession of Fairfield & Weld, which Cushman, True & Co. recovered on the trial of the cause. When appellants came to deliver out the corn to the various holders of receipts, it was found to be deficient in quantity. Each holder of receipts claimed the full amount placed in store by him. And this bill was exhibited to settle the entire matter between all parties.
It appears that the assignment to appellants was verbal, but the evidence shows that they, at the time, agreed to deliver the corn in store to the different holders of Fairfield & Weld's receipts. They, by the assignment, only acquired the property and the interest of the firm of Fairfield & Weld, subject to all existing liens. When they went into possession, it was as trustees, for the benefit of all parties in interest, and they could not rightfully appropriate or divert any portion of the property of other persons, which thus came to their hands, to their own use. They must also be held to account strictly for all such property which thus came to their hands. But by the arrangement, they acquired the right to apply all of the firm property acquired by the assignment, in discharge of their claim against the firm. They were only bound to deliver the corn belonging to holders of receipts, which was in store at the time. Having done so they were exonerated from further liability. They contracted for no greater liability. And if Fairfield & Weld owned any corn then in store, it became theirs, and they were authorized to retain it.
Appellants likewise became, by the assignment, the equitable owners of the contracts entered into by Fairfield & Weld for the purchase of corn. When that firm entered into such agreements, and advanced their own money, it was on their own account, and for their own...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Preston v. U.S.
...Central States Corp. v. Luther, 215 F.2d 38, 45 (10th Cir.1954); Goodman v. Northcutt, 14 Or. 529, 13 P. 485 (1887); Dole v. Olmstead, 36 Ill. 150, 155-156 (1864). The same result must obtain under Wisconsin law, see Wis.Stat. Sec. 407.207(2) (quoted supra); Anderson on Uniform Commercial C......
-
Rich v. Utah Commercial & Savings Bank
... ... R. 3 C ... P. 437; Jones v. Moore, 4 Younge & C. 351; ... Belcher v. Livestock Commission Co., 26 Tex. Civ ... App. 60, 62 S.W. 924; Dole v. Olmstead, 36 Ill. 150, ... 85 Am. Dec. 397; Drudge v. Leiter, 18 Ind.App. 694, ... 43 N.E. 34; Arthur v. Railroad, 61 Iowa 648, 17 N.W ... 24; ... ...
-
Minneapolis Iron Store Co. v. Branum
...Barry, 77 Minn. 128, 79 N.W. 656; O'Dell v. Leyda, 46 Ohio St. 244, 20 N.E. 472; McBee v. Ceasar, 15 Ore. 62, 13 P. 652; Dole v. Olmstead, 36 Ill. 150, 85 Am. Dec. 397. grain is delivered to and placed in an elevator in the due and ordinary course of such business, it is not to be expected ......
-
United States v. Luther, 4928
...States Corp. v. Luther, 10 Cir., 215 F.2d 38, 45, and cases cited in note 10. 10 Goodman v. Northcutt, 14 Or. 529, 13 P. 485; Dole v. Olmstead, 36 Ill. 150, 155-156. 11 Norton v. Agricultural Bond & Credit Corporation, 10 Cir., 92 F.2d 348, 351, 352, certiorari denied 302 U.S. 763, 58 S.Ct.......