Heckman v. Tammen
| Decision Date | 19 February 1900 |
| Parties | HECKMAN v. TAMMEN et al. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from appellate court, First district.
Action by Wallace Heckman, assignee of the American Printing Company, against Herman Tammen and others, to determine the priority of claims to a surplus received on a sale of the assets of Edward Beeh, Jr., an insolvent, in which Joseph Ditto filed a bill of interpleader. From a judgment in favor of defendants, affirmed by the appellate court (84 Ill. App. 537), plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
Heckman, Elsdon & Shaw, for appellant.
Smith, Helmer, Moulton & Price, for appellees.
This case was begun by bill of interpleader in the superior court of Cook county. On December 7, 1897, George S. Morrill & Co. foreclosed a chattel mortgage given by Edward Beeh, Jr., on his chattel property contained in his printing establishment, and used in carrying on his business, and said property was taken and sold by Joseph Ditto, a constable, under the mortgage; and a sufficient amount of the proceeds was applied to pay the costs and charges, and the debt of Morrill & Co., leaving a balance of $517.39. The American Printing Company held a second mortgage, given by Beeh March 1, 1897, on the same property, to secure Beeh's debt to it of $879.95. After Ditto had taken possession under the Morrill mortgage, and before the sale, the appellant, who was the assignee of the then insolvent American Printing Company, placed said second mortgage in Ditto's hands for foreclosure. The balance of the proceeds in Ditto's hands after payment of the Morrill mortgage, if applied in payment of the second mortgage, would have left nothing for appellees. Beeh was insolvent, and his business was suspended by the action of Morrill & Co. in foreclosing their mortgage. He was at the time indebted to the appellees, his employés, for labor and services as compositors, pressman, cylinder feeder, and clerk, done and performed in and about his said business, in an amount exceeding said balance in Ditto's hands. The employés having presented to Ditto their sworn statements of their claims, in compliance with section 2 of the act mentioned below, and both parties (the appellant and the appellees) claiming the fund, Ditto filed his said bill of interpleader. By its decree the superior court awarded the fund to appellees, to pay their respective claims for labor, and the appellate court having affirmed that decree, and granted a certificate of importance, the appellant prosecuted this, his further appeal.
The questions for decision are of law, only, and involve a construction of the act of June 21, 1895, entitled ‘An act to amend an act entitled ‘An act to protect employees and laborers in their claims for wages,’ approved June 15, 1887, in force July 1, 1887.' Laws 1895, p. 242. The first section is as follows: ‘That hereafter, when the business of any person, corporation, company or firm shall be suspended by the action of creditors, or be put into the hands of a receiver or trustee, then in all such cases the debts owing to laborers or servants which have accrued by reason of their labor or employment, shall be considered and treated as preferred claims, and such laborers or employees shall be preferred creditors, and shall be first paid in full, and if there be not sufficient to pay them in full the same shall be paid from the proceeds of the sale of the property seized: provided, that any person interested may contest any such claim or claims, or any part thereof, by filing exceptions thereto, supported by affidavit, with the officer having the custody of such property, and thereupon the claimant shall be required to reduce his claim to judgment before some court having jurisdiction thereof before any part thereof shall be paid.’ Appellees' claims were not contested, by exceptions filed thereto, in the manner provided for by the statute; and the only questions important for us to consider are whether or not the appellees belong to the class of persons whose claims are to be treated as preferred, under the statute, and, if it be conceded or held that appellees, as such claimants, are entitled to a preference in payment, whether or not they are entitled to such preference over the claim or demand of appellant secured by chattel mortgage.
Appellant insists that appellees' claims have a preference only over the claims of general creditors, and not over those which had been secured by chattel mortgages or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
American Type Founders' Co. v. Nichols
...on the property executed after said statute became operative, but before any of the claims of the employés accrued. Heckman v. Tammen, 184 Ill. 144, 56 N. E. 361. The reasoning upon which that decision rests is as "The effect of the act is to create in favor of laborers and servants a statu......
-
Pryor v. Pryors
... ... them in which the view urged by appellees here had been ... taken. One of these earlier cases, Heckman v ... Tammen et al., 184 Ill. 144, 56 N.E. 361, is relied ... on largely by appellees, a lengthy excerpt from it appearing ... in their brief, ... ...
- O'Connell v. Chicago Terminal Transfer R. Co.
-
Seymour v. Berg
...the livery company, preferred or otherwise, could be paid. But it is contended by appellee, under the authority of Heckman v. Tammen, 184 Ill. 144, 56 N. E. 361, that the effect of the act in question is to create a statutory lien in favor of laborers and servants upon the chattel property,......