Hayden v. Allyn

Decision Date25 February 1887
Citation11 A. 31,55 Conn. 280
CourtConnecticut Supreme Court
PartiesHAYDEN, Trustee, etc., v. ALLYN and others.

Appeal from common pleas, Hartford county.

Action by Hayden, appellant, as trustee in insolvency of one Wheeler, to recover the value of goods alleged to have been transferred by Wheeler to the defendants in violation of the insolvent law. The case was tried to the court, (BENNETT, J.,) who found the following facts:

"The defendants are partners under the name of the Allyn & Blanchard Company, dealing in groceries in the city of Hartford. The partnership consists of N. B. Allyn, O. H. Blanchard, C. G. Lincoln, and E. N. Seyms. Between November 20, 1885, and February 10, 1886, they had sold and delivered goods to the value of $382.31 to Frederick A. Wheeler, of Hartford, a retail dealer in groceries and meat, and on March 11, 1886, he was owing them $232.04. Wheeler's place of business consisted of two stores adjoining and connected by an arch through the partition wall. In one he conducted the grocery business, in the other, the meat business. He had one clerk. Charles A. Fowler was employed by the defendants as their city agent in soliciting orders for goods, and collecting accounts due the firm. The first bill of goods sold Wheeler November 20, 1885, amounted to $223.89, a part of which was sold on 30 days' time and a part on 60 days'. On that day Wheeler was put on Fowler's list of customers, and thereafter Fowler continued to visit him regularly twice a week, in common with all other customers on his list. After the account became due Fowler began to dun Wheeler, and continued to do so upon his regular visits as often as once or twice a week, until March 1, 1886. During that time Wheeler made two payments,—January 1, $100, and March 1, $50. From November 20, 1885, to February 10, 1886, Fowler continued to sell goods to Wheeler to any amount he chose to order, and upon the regular credit given by the defendants to their customers.

"On February 1st, Wheeler took an inventory of his business, which showed $750 of assets and $500 debts. About the middle of February, Wheeler made a statement of his assets and liabilities to Fowler, as shown by the inventory, and at the same time represented to him that a friend in Springfield either owed him, or was about to lend him, sufficient money to pay all his debts. Fowler reported these statements to the defendants the same day. In the latter part of February, Wheeler had a further talk with Fowler about his business affairs, and then said that his meat business was profitable, but that his grocery business was not; that he contemplated a change in his business arrangements, and wanted either to obtain a partner or sell out his grocery department; that he would buy no more goods of the Allyn & Blanchard Company until he had paid their bill in full, and asked Fowler if his firm would take back the goods on hand which he had bought of them. Fowler told Wheeler that he had no authority to take the goods back, but advised him to consult the defendants.

"On March 1st, Wheeler went to the defendants' store, and paid them $50 on account, and at the same time had a talk of an hour or more about his business affairs with Allyn, one of the defendants. He stated that he did not have the money to pay his debts then due, and could not turn his goods fast enough to meet his obligations; that all his creditors were asking for payment, but the defendants were pressing him the most; that the defendants were his largest creditor, and the only one that he owed more than $100. Wheeler asked the defendants to take back his stock of groceries on hand which he had bought of them, and credit the amount on his account; stating that if they would do so he could close out his grocery business, thereby reducing his expenses by surrendering the lease of one store and discharging his clerk. He thought in that way he could go on with his meat business. Allyn suggested that, instead of returning the goods, he should try and borrow $400, or get a partner, or sell out his grocery business; but that, if he did not succeed in any of those efforts, they then would take back the goods. Wheeler went away to make an effort to carry out Allyn's suggestion. March 11th, Wheeler telephoned to the Allyn & Blanchard Company that he wished them to take back the goods that day. Allyn received the message, and asked him to come to the store. Allyn was about leaving for New York, and spoke to Blanchard about the matter; stating that Wheeler would come to the store for the purpose of returning the goods and fixing up his account. About 2 o'clock Wheeler came, and saw Blanchard, and stated that he wished to fix up his account by returning the goods. Blanchard did not wish to take back the goods, and suggested that he sell them to some one, and pay them the proceeds. Wheeler stated that he had tried to sell them, but could not find a customer, and, as he had no money, he did not know how they could get payment unless they took back the goods. He thought if he could fix up their account he could go on in business, as his other creditors were not pressing him. Seyms was also present at this time, and suggested to Wheeler that he thought Woodward & Co. would buy the goods. Seyms and Wheeler then went to the store of Woodward & Co. to find Woodward. Woodward & Co. were successors to Seyms & Co., retail grocers, and also were customers of the Allyn & Blanchard Company to the extent of about $500 per month. Seyms stated to Woodward that he wanted him to buy the stock of groceries belonging to Wheeler. When Woodward wished to know why he wanted him to buy, Seyms said, 'You go down and buy them; it is all right,'—meaning by that that if Woodward bought the goods, and lost anything by reason of so doing, he would make his loss good. Woodward agreed to buy the goods at the price at which they had been billed to Wheeler by the Allyn & Blanchard Company. He bought them simply on the suggestion of Seyms, but expected to use them in his business. Seyms, Wheeler, and Woodward went at once to Wheeler's store, and the goods were then delivered to Woodward. The whole amount of goods delivered was $184.26. It was agreed between Seyms and Wheeler that the proceeds should be turned over to the Allyn & Blanchard Company and credited on their account with Wheeler. There were two loads of the goods. The first load was taken to the store of Woodward & Co. After the second load was on the wagon, Woodward told Seyms that he could not take the goods, because he thought if it should become known to his customers that he had bought a second-hand stock, and put in with his own stock, it would injure his trade. Woodward decided not to take them, and then Seyms ordered the second load then on the wagon to be taken to the store of the Allyn & Blanchard Company., and it was so delivered. On the next day the other load was also delivered at the store of the company, and all the goods became a part of their stock. In the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
15 cases
  • Connecticut Nat. Bank and Trust Co. v. Chadwick
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • 22 d2 Janeiro d2 1991
    ...reviewed by the appellate court. An erroneous conclusion is an error of law and not an error in an inference of fact." Hayden v. Allyn, 55 Conn. 280, 289, 11 Atl. 31 [1887].' Davis v. Margolis, [supra, 107 Conn. at 421, 140 A. 823]." Carr v. Huber, 18 Conn.App. 150, 154, 557 A.2d 548 (1989)......
  • Carr v. Huber, 6890
    • United States
    • Connecticut Court of Appeals
    • 18 d2 Abril d2 1989
    ...reviewed by the appellate court. An erroneous conclusion is an error of law and not an error in an inference of fact.' Hayden v. Allyn, 55 Conn. 280, 289, 11 Atl. 31 [1887]." Davis v. Margolis, 107 Conn. 417, 421, 140 A. 823 (1928). The primary function and duty of the courts is to ascertai......
  • Neff v. Neff
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • 1 d3 Junho d3 1921
    ...been guilty of adultery." An erroneous conclusion, drawn from subordinate facts, is an error of law, and reviewable by us. Hayden v. Allyn, 55 Conn. 280, 289, 11 A. 31. examination of the facts stated in the finding does not indicate that the trial court did err in this conclusion. The firs......
  • Davis v. Margolis
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • 28 d2 Fevereiro d2 1928
    ... ... appellate court. An erroneous conclusion is an error of law ... and not an error in an inference of fact." Hayden v ... Allyn, 55 Conn. 280, 289, 11 A. 31, 34; Tyler v ... Waddingham, 58 Conn. 375, 386, 20 A. 335, 8 L.R.A. 657; ... Neff v. Neff, 96 Conn ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT