Jameson v. Maxcy

Decision Date17 December 1895
PartiesJAMESON ET AL. v. MAXCY ET AL.
CourtWisconsin Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Appeal from circuit court, Bayfield county; John K. Parish, Judge.

Garnishee proceedings by W. J. Jameson and others against D. M. Maxcy, garnishee of A. W. Conover, and another. Judgment for garnishee. Plaintiffs appeal. Reversed.

The defendant Conover, a manufacturer, being insolvent, on the 13th day of January, 1894, entered into an agreement with a portion of his creditors and with the garnishee defendant, D. M. Maxcy, as follows: “Memorandum of agreement, made this 13th day of January, A. D. 1894, by and between A. W. Conover, party of the first part, and D. M. Maxcy and * * *, parties of the second part, witnesseth: That whereas, the said A. W. Conover is the owner and operator of a certain box factory, known as the ‘Washburn Box Factory,’ located at Washburn, Wisconsin; and whereas, the said A. W. Conover is financially embarrassed, and indebted to the parties of the second part for labor and other considerations; and whereas, he is desirous of procuring an extension of credit and arranging for the payment of the unsecured creditors; and whereas, the parties of the second part are desirous to have some security or assurance that their claims shall be paid out of the manufactured material produced by the said box factory from time to time as the same shall be received: Now, therefore, it is agreed between the said parties: First. That from and after this date, until the termination of this agreement, as herein provided, D. M. Maxcy shall be the financial agent, representing the said parties mutually, to collect and receive the proceeds of all sales of the product of the said factory from time to time as the same shall be shipped; and to that end the said A. W. Conover hereby authorizes the said D. M. Maxcy, as such agent, to receive and collect and receipt for all of the moneys that are due, or that may become due, on account of the sales of such product. Second. It is agreed that the said A. W. Conover shall have the sole control of the management of the said factory, except as hereinbefore provided. Third. The proceeds of the sales of the manufactured product now on hand shall be applied by said agent as follows: (1) One car load of the manufactured product now on hand, consisting of egg cases and enough of other manufactured product to make the total sum of three hundred ten dollars ($310), shall be paid to A. W. Conover for the purpose of paying for claims against the factory on account of machinery bought. (2) The proceeds, when collected, of the balance of the manufactured product now on hand, shall be used to pay pro rata the unpaid and now owing labor claims of the present crew, except in cases where time checks have been issued, less the necessary expenses incurred in shipping the same. (3) It is further agreed that the future net earnings of the factory, during the continuance of this contract, shall be applied by said agent pro rata among the unsecured creditors of the said box factory after the payment of all future earned labor. (4) It is further agreed that the said A. W. Conover shall receive as wages under this agreement, to be paid as other future earned labor, the sum of seventy-five dollars per month. (5) It is further agreed that, in case the said Conover shall fail at any time to carry out his part of the said contract in accordance with the terms thereof, the said agent is authorized to take possession of all material, manufactured and unmanufactured, and dispose of the same, and apply it in accordance with the provisions of this contract. (6) It is further agreed that this contract shall continue in force for a period of six months, subject to be renewed by the consent of the said agent and said Conover, provided that the said Conover may at any time pay up the outstanding indebtedness, and be released from the terms of this contract. (7) It is further agreed that Henry Textor and C. E. Williams shall be a consulting committee, representing the general unsecured creditors, who shall have the right at any time to consult with Mr. Maxcy, and examine his...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Dyson v. St. Paul National Bank
    • United States
    • Minnesota Supreme Court
    • December 5, 1898
    ...not cover all the property of the debtors would not affect the legal consequences of the assignment. Maxwell v. Simonton, supra; Jameson v. Maxcy, supra; Dahlman Greenwood, supra; Corn Exchange v. Philadelphia, 11 Phila. 510. The Wisconsin law must govern. The bill of sale was made by a res......
  • Collins v. Corwith
    • United States
    • Wisconsin Supreme Court
    • December 15, 1896
    ...Co. v. McHenry, 83 Wis. 573, 53 N. W. 896;Bank v. Weed, 86 Wis. 212, 56 N. W. 634;Strong v. Kalk, 91 Wis. 29, 64 N. W. 295;Jameson v. Maxcy, 91 Wis. 563, 65 N. W. 492. Such opinion of the trial court is fully justified by the nature of the instruments and transactions and the evidence. Mani......
  • Sweet, Dempster & Co. v. Neff
    • United States
    • Wisconsin Supreme Court
    • March 14, 1899
    ...within the decisions of this court in Winner v. Hoyt, 66 Wis. 227, 28 N. W. 380,Strong v. Kalk, 91 Wis. 29, 64 N. W. 295,Jameson v. Maxcy, 91 Wis. 563, 65 N. W. 492,Collins v. Corwith, 94 Wis. 514, 69 N. W. 349, and similar cases? The principles of law governing the subject are too well kno......
  • Dahlman v. Greenwood
    • United States
    • Wisconsin Supreme Court
    • February 8, 1898
    ...all of the property of the firm does not affect the legal consequence. Maxwell v. Simonton, 81 Wis. 635, 51 N. W. 869;Jameson v. Maxcy, 91 Wis. 563, 65 N. W. 492. The plaintiff was a creditor of Schneider Bros. at the time the mortgage was given, and garnished the bank while the stock of go......
  • 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