John Arnold v. Lewis Hatch
| Citation | 177 U.S. 276,44 L.Ed. 769,20 S.Ct. 625 |
| Decision Date | 09 April 1900 |
| Docket Number | No. 183,183 |
| Parties | JOHN W. ARNOLD, Plff. in Err. , v. LEWIS HATCH |
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
This was an intervening petition by the defendant in error Lewis Hatch, filed in the district court for the northern district of Illinois, in the case of Joseph G. Heim, Receiver, v. Frank W. Hatch, praying for the release by the marshal and a return to petitioner of a large amount of cattle and other farm property alleged to belong to him, and levied upon by the marshal as the property of Frank W. Hatch.
The cause originated in an action begun in the district court for the northern district of Illinois, by Joseph G. Heim, as receiver of the First National Bank of Southbend, Washington, against Frank W. Hatch, to enforce against the defendant an individual liability as a stockholder of the bank, which had become insolvent. Defendant having made default, a judgment was rendered against him in the sum of $4,351.09 and costs, for which an execution was issued and levied upon the cattle and other farm property in dispute. Whereupon Lewis Hatch, the father of Frank W. Hatch, filed this petition, to which the plaintiff in error, John W. Arnold, marshal for the northern district of Illinois, made answer, denying the petitioner's ownership of the property, and admitting his levy upon it as the property of Frank W. Hatch.
The case came on for trial before a jury, and resulted in a verdict for the petitioner, upon which judgment was entered. On writ of error from the circuit court of appeals this judgment was affirmed. 60 U. S. App. 659, 89 Fed. Rep. 1013, 32 C. C. A. 602. Whereupon plaintiff in error, Arnold, sued out a writ of error from this court.
Mr. Kenesaw M. Landis for plaintiff in error.
Mr. George A. Dupuy for defendant in error.
This case presents the frequent question of the title and ownership of personal property levied upon as the property of an execution debtor, and claimed by another party. The undisputed facts are that, in 1883, the petitioner, Lewis Hatch, who then and for about twenty-five years prior thereto, had re- sided upon and worked a large farm in McHenry county, Illinois, made a contract with his son, Frank W. Hatch, a young man just out of school, under which it was agreed that the latter should undertake the management of the farm, farm implements, and live stock, make all repairs, pay all taxes and other expenses, replace all implements as they were worn out, keep up all live stock, and have as his own the net profits. It was further stipulated that each party should be at liberty to terminate the arrangement at any time, and that the son should turn back to his father the farm with its implements, stock, and other personalty, of the same kind and amount as was on the farm when the father retired, and in as good condition as when he took them.
As all questions connected with the veracity of witnesses, the bona fides of this arrangement, and its exact terms, are forestalled by the verdict of the jury, we are bound to consider the case as if the arrangement had been reduced to writing, and such writing were the only evidence bearing upon the subject. As the only testimony in the case was that of the father and the son, and as their statements were entirely harmonious, we are simply to inquire as to the correctness of the charge of the court to the jury, that, if they believed the arrangement was substantially such as was stated by the petitioner and his son, it did not have the effect in law to vest the title to any of the property or proceeds of the farm in Frank W. Hatch, although he may have had power to sell the same to others without any further authority from his father. There was evidence showing, not only that the son assumed the entire management of the farm, but that he was at full liberty to sell and dispose of its products, to replace old stock and implements with new, and to appropriate the net proceeds to himself; and that his only obligation was to return the property on demand, or substituted property of the same kind and amount, whenever either party should see fit to terminate the arrangement.
We do not know that it is necessary to fix an exact definition to the relations between these parties, or to determine whether the law of master and servant, landlord and tenant, or bailor and bailee, governed the transaction. The main object is to ascertain the intent of the parties with respect to the ownership of the property. There is no doubt that the title to the farm remained in the father, who continued to occupy the homestead, and provided accommodations for certain of the farm hands; that the arrangement was made with his son soon after he left school, and apparently for the purpose of starting him in business. He was then unmarried, and lived in the same house with his father, who furnished...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Estate of Ventling, Matter of
...nothing of substance and, consequently, has nothing upon which a lien or attachment can be levied. See e.g., Arnold v. Hatch, 177 U.S. 276, 20 S.Ct. 625, 44 L.Ed. 769 (1900); cases cited in 6 Am.Jur.2d Attachment and Garnishment § 142 (1963). The appellant also recognizes the possible, or p......
-
Pennsylvania Steel Co. v. New York City Ry. Co.
... ... think these 57's were, whether actually segregated or ... not. Arnold v. Hatch, 177 U.S. 276, 20 Sup.Ct. 625, ... 44 L.Ed. 769 ... John W ... Griggs, of New York City, for claimants ... Strong ... ...
-
SAN CARLOS MILLING COMPANY, LIMITED v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
...have sought to effectuate the intent of the parties as expressed in their agreements. See Powder Co. v. Burkhardt, 97 U. S. 110; Arnold v. Hatch, 177 U. S. 276; Ludvigh v. American Woolen Co., 231 U. S. 522; In re Taylor, 46 Fed. (2d) 326; In re Renfro-Wadenstein, 47 Fed. (2d) In Arnold v. ......