Goodbar & Co. v. Knight
| Decision Date | 07 January 1907 |
| Docket Number | 12,485 |
| Citation | 42 So. 539,89 Miss. 124 |
| Parties | GOODBAR & COMPANY v. THOMAS J. KNIGHT ET AL |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
FROM the circuit court of, second district, Yalobusha county, HON SAMUEL C. COOK, Judge.
Goodbar & Company, a corporation, appellant, was plaintiff in the court below; Knight, one of the appellees, was defendant there; and Trusty, another appellee, was claimant. From a judgment in favor of Trusty, the claimant, the plaintiff appealed to the supreme court.
April 12, 1906, Knight, a merchant, while indebted to appellant Goodbar & Company, made an assignment of his stock of goods and merchandise, of less value than $ 1,000, to appellee Trusty as assignee, for the benefit of creditors. The assignee took charge of the stock of goods and merchandise filed the assignment for record, made inventories, notified all creditors of what had been done, and requested them to file their claims with him. Two days after the execution of the assignment, but before the assignee had given bond Goodbar & Company, ignoring the assignment, instituted suit against Knight before a justice of the peace, seeking thereby to establish a lien on goods sold by the company to Knight which had passed, under the assignment, into the hands of the assignee, and to this end filed the necessary affidavit describing the property sought to be subjected, averring its liability for the debt sued on under Code 1892, § 2720, and, obtaining a writ therefor, caused the goods to be seized. Appellee Trusty, the assignee, propounded a claim for the goods, setting up title to the property in himself as assignee by virtue of the assignment and his proceedings thereunder. The case was tried upon a claimant's issue in the justice's court, and decided for the claimant. Goodbar & Company appealed to the circuit court and upon trial there, upon an agreed statement of the facts, a like judgment was rendered.
Affirmed.
Isaac T. Blount, for appellant.
Under Code 1892, § 2710, the seller of goods may enforce his lien for purchase money while the goods are in the hands of the purchaser.
The manner of enforcing this lien is provided for in Code 1892, § 2720. The lien attached from the date of seizure, as it relates to third parties or purchasers for value without notice.
An assignee is not a bona fide purchaser for value, but a volunteer; hence he cannot defeat a lien. The assignee has no more rights than his assignor had.
A...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sayers & Scovill Co. v. Doak
... ... claim or lien which overrides and is superior to the title of ... the assignee. This was affirmed in Goodbar & Co. v. Knight, ... 89 Miss. 124 ... Appellant ... argues that it occupies a better position than others who ... have passed under ... ...
-
Archibald v. General Motors Acceptance Corporation
...it would be entitled to reclaim the car or the proceeds thereof. Frank, Herman & Co. v. Robinson, 65 Miss. 162, 3 So. 253; Goodbar v. Knight, 89 Miss. 124, 42 So. 539; re Sol Aarons & Co., 193 F. 646, C. C. A., 2d cir.; In re Empire Grocery Company, 277 F. 73; In re Morrill Mascott Co., 286......
-
Pearson v. Wm. R. Moore Dry Goods Co
... ... prior to that time a mere assignee for creditors had a lien ... superior to that of the vendor. Goodbar v. Knight, ... 89 Miss. 124. In other words, after the passage of the ... bankruptcy act, the legislature took steps to give the vendor ... of ... ...
-
Weiss, Dreyfous & Seiferth, Inc. v. Natchez Inv. Co., Inc.
...second, that the lien is subordinate to the lien of the deeds of trust. Frank v. Robinson, 65 Miss. 162, 3 So. 253; and Goodbar v. Knight, 89 Miss. 124, 42 So. 539, relied on in support of the first of these contentions. In those cases it was held that a purchase-money lien could not be ass......