Flower v. Cornish

• Decision Date: 28 February 1879
• Citation: 25 Minn. 473
• Parties: MARK D. FLOWER <I>vs.</I> W. D. CORNISH.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

Page 473

25 Minn. 473

MARK D. FLOWER vs. W. D. CORNISH.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

February 28, 1879.

On November 5, 1874, one F. A. Taylor, a retail bookseller, made a chattel mortgage of his stock of goods to the plaintiff and one Hawkins, to secure certain promissory notes. On February 15, 1875, Taylor made a general assignment, for the benefit of his creditors, to the defendant, who took possession of the stock, which had remained in Taylor's possession ever since the giving of the mortgage. This action was brought in the district court for Ramsey county, to establish the claim of plaintiff, as owner of the mortgage and the mortgage debt, to the proceeds of a portion of the mortgaged property, which had been sold by order of the court. The defendant claimed that the mortgage was fraudulent as against Taylor's creditors, and that he is therefore entitled, as such assignee, to the proceeds of the mortgaged property. A jury was waived, and the action was tried before Simons, J., who ordered judgment for plaintiff, on November 24, 1876. A new trial was denied, and the defendant appealed.

H. L. Williams and W. D. Cornish, for appellant.

E. C. Palmer, for respondent.

CORNELL, J.

The rights of the defendant in respect to the property in controversy are those of a voluntary assignee, holding under a written general assignment in trust for the benefit of creditors, unaffected by any statute in force at the time of its execution. None of the rights which he has thus acquired can be enlarged, abridged or altered by any subsequent legislation, for, under the constitution, no one can be deprived of property or any interest therein, except by "due process of law." So far, therefore, as any question here is concerned, the act of March 2, 1877, (Laws 1877, c. 142; Gen. St. 1878, c. 41, § 27,) cited by defendant, has no application, for the assignment under which he holds was made on February 15, 1875, and the rights of the assignee thereunder, whatever they were, had become vested and fixed, and even adjudicated in the district court, long before that statute was passed.

Respecting these rights, they were such, and such only, as the instrument of assignment purported to transfer, and as the assignor had the legal capacity to pass to his assignee. He could transfer no other or greater interest in any property than what he himself possessed, and had the right to enforce. His assignee could acquire no other. His title being solely a derivative one under the assignment, he can assert and enforce no claim or right thereunder which his assignor could not legally have enforced, had no assignment been made. The mortgage to plaintiff from Taylor, the enforcement of which,...