F. & M. Schaefer Brewing Co. v. Moebs
| Decision Date | 25 March 1905 |
| Citation | 73 N.E. 858,187 Mass. 571 |
| Parties | F. & M. SCHAEFER BREWING CO. v. MOEBS et al. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Frank H. Stewart, for appellants.
This is a bill in equity filed in the superior court on May 12, 1902 under Rev. Laws, c. 159, § 3, cl. 8, to reach and apply in payment of a debt property alleged to have been conveyed in fraud of creditors by Henry Moebs, the first-named defendant to the other defendants, his sons. The case was sent to a master, who found the following facts: At the time of the conveyances hereinafter referred to, Henry Moebs had been engaged in business in Boston for about 26 years, at 193 Hampden street, where he conducted a restaurant, and a wholesale and retail liquor business, with a bottling establishment. He had licenses of the first, fourth, and fifth class. His three sons were employed by him in the business--two of them as bartenders at weekly wages, and the other Joseph, being in charge of the bottling establishment on a commission. The three sons lived at home with their father, but it did not appear that any of them except Joseph paid for board and lodging. At the time of the conveyances, and for some time prior thereto, the father was afflicted with rheumatism, and was unable properly to attend to business. For a period of over five years the sales in the business had been falling off, so that at the time of the conveyances it was being conducted at little or no profit. On April 10, 1901, the father sold to his son Joseph three horses, two delivery wagons, one buggy, and some harnesses, for an expressed consideration of $600. This consideration consisted of a prior loan in the form of a check for $502.80, dated January 7, 1901, and deposited in the bank on April 10, 1901; and the balance, $97.20, was paid in cash on the day of the sale. These chattels remained in the possession of the father, and were used by him in his business until April 28, 1902. On the last-named day the father gave to his three sons a bill of sale of all the fixtures of the establishment 193 Hampden street, for an expressed consideration of $600, which was paid in cash by one of the sons. He was also indebted to this son in the sum of $200, and he owed Joseph $1,200. These sums formed part of the consideration. The master treated the two conveyances as one transaction, and found that the good will of the business was included, though not specifically mentioned. Against the objection of the defendants, the master ruled that the good will of the business included the licenses, and admitted evidence of the value of a first-class liquor license in 1902 for purposes of transfer, subject to the approval of the police commissioners of Boston. This value he found to be on April 28, 1902, $1,900. It was admitted that new licenses for the year beginning May 1, 1902, were issued to the sons, and that the father sent a letter to the police commissioners, asking and consenting that this be done. The master further found that on April 28, 1902, the father was owing and unable to pay other debts than the one due the plaintiff, and that the father at that time informed his sons of his financial condition. The master also found that the amount due the plaintiff was $6,076.35 in May, 1902, when the demand was made; that the actual value of the property conveyed, including $1,900 for the license and $300 for the good will, was $4,100; and that the consideration paid by the sons, in cash and money due them from the father, amounted to $2,600. The master ruled that there was a sufficient consideration to support the conveyance, and that the above-mentioned acts did not constitute such a fraud as was necessary to invalidate the conveyance. The master stated in his report that there was no other evidence tending to show that the father had derived any benefit or advantage from the transfer, and found that the conveyance was not made in fraud of creditors, that the bill should be dismissed as against the sons, and that judgment should be rendered against the father in the sum of $6,082.15. The plaintiff and the first-named defendant filed objections and exceptions to this report. The superior court overruled the plaintiff's exceptions and three of the first-named defendant's exceptions, and sustained the other exceptions. In other respects the report of the master was confirmed, and a decree was entered establishing the plaintiff's claim in the sum of $6,082.15, with interest and costs, and dismissing the bill as against the sons, with costs in the sum of $10. From this decree the plaintiff appealed to this court.
As we understand the decree, the superior court disallowed these items of the master's report, namely, $300 for the good will and $1,900 for the value of the license. We are of opinion that the superior court...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jubinville v. Jubinville
...increasing the license fee so that any excess will go into the public treasury rather than to the vendor. See F. & M. Schaefer Brewing Co. v. Koebs, 187 Mass. 571, 73 N.E. 858;Tracy v. Ginzberg, 189 Mass. 260, 75 N.E. 637; affirmed, 205 U.S. 170, 27 S.Ct. 461, 51 L.Ed. 755;Ellis v. Small, 2......
-
Jubinville v. Jubinville
... ... to the vendor. See F. & M. Schaefer Brewing Co. v. Moebs, ... 187 Mass. 571; Tracy v. Ginzberg, 189 Mass. 260 , ... affirmed, 205 U ... ...
-
Gladstone v. Murray Co.
... ... purchase of the stock. See F. & M. Schaefer Brewing Co ... v. Moebs, 187 Mass. 571; Pierce v. O'Brien, 189 ... Mass. 58 , 60; Cohen v. Levy, ... ...
-
Briggs v. Sanford
... ... inadequacy of consideration usually not being conclusive ... evidence of fraud. F. & M. Schaefer Brewing Co. v ... Moebs, 187 Mass. 571, 73 N.E. 858. Whether a conveyance ... is fraudulent or ... ...