Hauselt v. Harrison
| Decision Date | 01 October 1881 |
| Citation | 105 U.S. 401,26 L.Ed. 1075 |
| Parties | HAUSELT v. HARRISON |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
ERROR to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Western District of Pennsylvania.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
Mr. Lewis Sanders for the plaintiff in error.
Mr. M. F. Elliott and Mr. H. C. Parsons for the defendant in error.
This was an action of replevin, brought Feb. 20, 1875, by Jefferson Harrison, assignee in bankruptcy of Edward Bayer, against Charles Hauselt and Charles Korn, to recover possession of certain tanned skins, part finished and part unfinished, and bark, which, it is alleged, had been transferred by Bayer to them, in fraud of the bankrupt law. There was a judgment in his favor, to reverse which this writ of error is prosecuted.
Bayer, who, upon his own petition, filed Nov. 10, 1874, was adjudicated a bankrupt Jan. 18, 1875, owned and was possessed of a tannery at Tioga, Pa., at which he had been conducting the business of a tanner; and Hauselt was a leather-merchant in New York.
On the day of its date, they entered into an agreement in writing, as follows:——
'Articles of agreement entered into this twenty-ninth day of May, 1874, between Edward Bayer, of Brooklyn, New York, party of the first part, and Charles Hauselt, of New York City, party of the second part, witnesseth:——
'In consideration of certain moneys advanced, at the rate of seven per cent per annum, to the party of the first part, for the purchase of veal and kip skins to be tanned, curried, and finished by one Charles Korn, the party of the first part hereby agrees to send all the skins so tanned, curried, and finished by the said Charles Korn, said skins to be labelled and stamped with a label and stamp bearing the name of said Charles Korn, the skins to be in every way so finished as those now known in the New York market as the 'Korn skin,' exclusive to the party of the second part, he being sole agent for the so-called 'Korn skin' in the United States, in consideration of a commission of five per cent of proceeds of all sales and a further one per cent to cover fire insurance, storage, and labor; the said party of the second part agrees to sell all such skins to be sent him at the best market prices, the wholesale or case price only to be taken as an average in account sales, small sales to be taken to own account at same price; the party of the second part further agrees to place all proceeds of said skins, after deduction of aforementioned commission and advances for the purchase of veal and kip skins, at the disposal of the party of the first part, for his own use and benefit.
'And it is further agreed that all the skins, whether green, in process of tanning, tanned, or tanned and finished, shall be considered as security for the refunding, with interest, of all the moneys advanced by the party of the second part, and that all the skins shall be insured for their full value in good companies only.
'Signed, sealed, and delivered on the day and year above written.
By E. HAUSELT, Att'y.
'Witness:
'FREDERICK E. SHEARER.'
The business contemplated by this contract was carried on, according to its terms, until Nov. 6, 1874. During that time Hauselt had made large cash advances and had received some tanned hides, but on that date was largely in advance, in excess of receipts, and in excess of the value of the property replevied. Bayer, having become broken in health and financially embarrassed, informed Hauselt of his condition, and that, in consequence, he could proceed no further in the execution of the contract between them, and could not otherwise repay his advances. Thereupon the parties entered into the following agreement:——
'This agreement, made the sixth day of November, 1874, between Edward Bayer, of the city of Brooklyn, State of New York, party of the first part, and Charles Hauselt, of the city, county, and State of New York, party of the second part, witnesseth:—— 'That whereas an agreement was entered into by the parties hereto on the twenty-ninth day of May, 1874, whereby the party of the first part was, among other things, to tan, finish, and deliver to the party of the second part veal and kip skins purchased in the raw by moneys advanced by the party of the second part; and whereas the party of the first part has become ill and physically unable to complete the tanning and finishing the skins now on hand at the tannery of the party of the first part, and in order that said contract or agreement may be carried out, it is hereby agreed, and the party of the second part is hereby authorized to take immediate possession and sole control of tannery, buildings, and outhouses connected therewith, of the party of the first part, in Tioga Township, Pennsylvania, and run and use the same, together with such of the materials on hand as may be necessary to finish and complete said skins now on hand in said tannery, &c., and to take possession of and sell said skins in any state as may be to the best advantage of the parties hereto, all sales guaranteed by the parties of the second part, the net proceeds of all said sales to be passed to the credit of the party of the first part, after deducting advances and expenses of finishing said skins as per the terms of said agreement.
'In witness whereof the parties hereto have hereunto set their hands and seals the day and year first above written.
'T. H. BRORMAN, Att'y.
'Signed, sealed, and delivered in the presence of
'C. H. SEYMOUR.'
In pursuance of this arrangement, Hauselt immediately took possession of the tannery and held the property replevied at the time this action was brought.
It may be assumed that at the date of the second contract Hauselt had knowledge of Bayer's insolvency and of his intention immediately to file his petition in bankruptcy.
The court below charged the jury, in substance, as follows: That the property in the skins purchased by means of the advances under the contract of May 29,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Couret v. Conner
... ... New Orleans Sav. Inst., 95 U.S. 764, 24 ... L.Ed. 598; Stewart v. Platt, 101 U.S. 731, 739, 25 ... L.Ed. 816, 818; Houselt v. Harrison, 105 U.S. 401, ... 406, 26 L.Ed. 1075, 1076; Adams v. Collier, 122 U.S ... 382, 30 L.Ed. 1207, 7 S.Ct. 1208; Brown v. Brabb, 67 ... Mich ... ...
-
Lynch v. Johnson
... ... New Orleans ... Sav. Inst., 95 U.S. 764 [24 L.Ed. 589]; Stewart v ... Platt, 101 U.S. 731 [25 L.Ed. 816]; Hauselt v ... Harrison, 105 U.S. 401 [[26 L.Ed. 1075]. The same ... doctrine was reaffirmed in Humphrey v. Tatman, 198 U.S. 91 ... [25 S.Ct. 567, 49 ... ...
-
Southern Dairies v. Banks
...bankrupt.' See Yeatman v. Savings Institution, 95 U.S. 764, 24 L.Ed. 589; Stewart v. Platt, 101 U.S. 731, 25 L.Ed. 816; Hauselt v. Harrison, 105 U.S. 401, 26 L.Ed. 1075. The same doctrine was reaffirmed in Humphrey v. Tatman, 198 U.S. 91, 25 S.Ct. 567, 49 L.Ed. 956. The law of Ohio says the......
-
Lawson v. Warren
...Platt v. Preston [D. C.] 3 F. 394; Yeatman v. Savings Institution, 95 U.S. 764 ; Stewart v. Platt, 101 U.S. 731, 739 ; Hauselt v. Harrison, 105 U.S. 401, 406 ; Adams v. Collier, 122 U.S. 382 [7 S. Ct. 1208, 30 L. Ed. 1207]; Brown v. Brabb, 67 Mich. 17, 22-32 [34 N.W. 403, 11 Am. St. Rep. 59......