Grant v. Minneapolis Brewing Company

• Decision Date: 30 April 1897
• Docket Number: 10,042-10,043--(6-7)
• Parties: J. COLFAX GRANT v. MINNEAPOLIS BREWING COMPANY
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

70 N.W. 868

68 Minn. 86

J. COLFAX GRANT v. MINNEAPOLIS BREWING COMPANY

Nos. 10,042-10,043--(6-7)

Supreme Court of Minnesota

April 30, 1897

Appeal by each party from an order of the district court for Hennepin county, Russell, J., denying his motion for a new trial. The action was by J. Colfax Grant, as assignee of one Schneider, insolvent, against the Minneapolis Brewing Company to recover $ 2,631.15. Affirmed on both appeals.

The orders appealed from are both affirmed, and neither party will be allowed statutory costs.

Rea Hubachek & Healy, for plaintiff, appellant, and Welch, Hayne Hubachek & Conlin, for plaintiff, respondent.

Cobb & Wheelwright, for defendant, appellant and respondent.

OPINION

CANTY J.

One Schneider, being insolvent, made an assignment on June 27 1895, under our insolvency law, for the equal benefit of all his creditors who would file releases. The plaintiff, his assignee, brought this action to set aside, as an unlawful preference, certain payments made to defendant, and to recover the amounts so paid. On the trial before the court without a jury, the court granted plaintiff the relief demanded, as to one item of payment, but denied it as to another. Each party moved for a new trial, and from an order denying the motion appeals to this court.

First, as to defendant's appeal: The court found that on February 8, 1895, Schneider borrowed of defendant $ 450, for which he executed his promissory note,

"payable to said defendant in one month and twenty days, and then and there agreed with the defendant that if he did not pay the said note at its maturity he would secure the same, and the indebtedness thereby represented, by the execution and delivery of a chattel mortgage upon his saloon furniture and fixtures."

The court further found that on May 17, 1895, said loan was wholly unpaid, and, in pursuance of his said promise to secure the same, said Schneider made to defendant a chattel mortgage on said saloon furniture and fixtures, and defendant received the mortgage pursuant to his said promise. On June 11, 1895, the chattel mortgage was paid by Schneider out of the proceeds of the sale of said mortgaged property. The court further finds that at the time the mortgage was executed, and at the time of the payment of the same Schneider was insolvent, which defendant at each of said times had reasonable cause to believe, and did in fact know, and that the mortgage was given and received for the purpose of giving defendant a preference over Schneider's other creditors. Judgment was ordered for plaintiff for the amount of such payment. The statute, G. S. 1894, § 4243, authorizes the setting...