Ehlers v. Stoeckle

• Decision Date: 02 October 1877
• Citation: 37 Mich. 261
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: Henry Ehlers and Charles Eggert v. Gottfried Stoeckle

37 Mich. 261

Henry Ehlers and Charles Eggert v. Gottfried Stoeckle

Supreme Court of Michigan

October 2, 1877

Argued June 20, 1877

Appeal from Mason. (Wheeler, J.)

Proceeding at law in the nature of a Creditor's Bill. Defendants appeal. Order quashed.

Order quashed, and the appellants recovered the costs of this court.

Isaac Gibson for the proceeding. Fraud is inferable from a sudden assignment of property (Smit v. People 15 Mich. 497) and from circumstances (O'Donnell v. Segar 25 Mich. 367; Wartemberg v. Spiegel 31 Mich. 400), and proof of fraud is sufficient if it creates belief. Watkins v. Wallace 19 Mich 77. The assignment or pretended sale of personal property retained, used and controlled by the assignor, is fraudulent and void as to his creditors, even if there is a bona fide debt due from him to the assignee. Twyne's Case 1 Smith's Lead. Cases 33.

C. G Wing, against the proceeding, cited Const. Art. VI §§ 27 and 32; Parsons v. Russell 11 Mich. 113; Ames v. P. H. L. & B. Co. Id. 139; Cooley's Const. Lim. 356.

OPINION

Cooley, C. J.

This was a proceeding at law in the nature of a creditor's bill, and was had before the circuit judge at chambers. The object was to reach certain property in the hands of George Stoeckle and August Tiederman which was supposed to belong to the judgment debtor, and to have been placed in their hands to keep it beyond the reach of creditors. The proceeding was instituted by a complaint by the judgment creditors, based upon which was an order by the circuit judge for the appearance of the defendant for examination. The examination took place, and Tiederman and George Stoeckle were sworn as witnesses. At the conclusion the circuit judge made an order which, omitting the preliminary recitals, is as follows "It is considered, and the said judge finds from the evidence, that the said defendant has refused to surrender his property on demand of the sheriff, to satisfy the execution returned in said cause unsatisfied. And he also finds that the following property, goods and chattels are the property of Gottfried Stoeckle, defendant, and liable to execution issued in said cause, and that they are not the property, goods and chattels of either August. Tiederman and George Stoeckle. Therefore, it is adjudged and ordered, that each, all and every one of said articles and goods and chattels aforesaid, to wit: one black horse, two sorrel horses, one two-horse bus, one double wagon, one sleigh, one buggy, one pair bob sleighs, one cutter, two double harnesses, one single harness, one saddle and two bridles, whether in the hands of said August Tiederman, George Stoeckle or Gottfried Stoeckle, be and the same are liable to any execution issued now or to be issued upon the judgment rendered by the said Circuit Court in said entitled cause. And it is further ordered that the sheriff of said Mason county take said property upon such execution and sell the said property, goods and chattels, or so much...