Jones v. McCormick Harvesting Mach. Co.
| Decision Date | 17 July 1897 |
| Docket Number | 386. |
| Citation | 82 F. 295 |
| Parties | JONES v. McCORMICK HARVESTING MACH. CO. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit |
J. E. Malone, for plaintiff in error.
T. W. Spence, for defendant in error.
Before WOODS, JENKINS, and SHOWALTER, Circuit Judges.
The plaintiff in error was the defendant below. The action was for the conversion of goods alleged to have been of the value of $2,500. There was a written waiver of trial by jury, and the court, upon a special finding of the facts, gave judgment for the plaintiff for a sum less than $2,000.
Jurisdiction of the case was not lost by reason of the finding that the goods converted were worth less than the jurisdictional amount, since it does not appear, nor is there shown reason to believe, that the value was overstated in the declaration for the purpose of conferring jurisdiction. Pickham v. Manufacturing Co., 23 C.C.A. 391, 77 F. 663.
The objection that the action was not maintainable because the defendant had come into possession and had disposed of the property as an assignee, by virtue of an assignment for the benefit of creditors under the statute of the state of Wisconsin, is not well taken, and would not have been even if the action had been in replevin. Property in the hands of an assignee for the benefit of creditors under the Wisconsin statute, is not in the custody of the law or of a court. Matthews v. Ott, 87 Wis. 399, 58 N.W. 774.
Other questions urged upon our attention cannot be considered, because they involve inquiry into the correctness in certain particulars of the finding of facts. The decisions upon the point by this court, commencing with Jenk's Adm'r v. Stapp, 9 U.S.App. 34, 3 C.C.A. 244, and 52 F. 641, are numerous.
The judgment below is affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
National Bank of Republic v. George M. Scott & Co.
...8 la., 96; Bradley v. Bailey, (la.) 64 N. W., 758; Rothschild v. Harbrook, (la.) 65 F. 283; Mathews v. Ott, 87 Wis. 399; Jones v. McCornick, 82 F. 295; Adler v. Ecker, Fed., 126; Lapp v. Van Norman, 19 F. 406; James v. Bank, 12 R. I., 460. This court has from early time applied the statute ......
-
Stanton Trust & Sav. Bank v. N. Mont. Ass'n of Credit Men
...for plaintiff rely chiefly, as to both their first and second assertions, upon the federal cases of Jones v. McCormick Machinery Co., 82 F. 295, 27 C. C. A. 133, and Powers v. Blue Grass Building & Loan Ass'n (C. C.) 86 F. 705. The first of these cases was decided solely upon the authority ......
-
Hammer & Steel, Inc. v. K&S Eng'rs, Inc.
...protective order issued, the $350,000 amount the conversion claim put in controversy must be counted. See Jones v. McCormick Harvesting Mach. Co., 82 F. 295, 295-96 (7th Cir. 1897) (holding court had jurisdiction in conversion action because even though it rendered judgment for a value of g......
-
Swofford Bros. Dry-Goods Co. v. Mills
......406; Lehman v. Rosengarten, 23 F. 642; The James Roy, 59 F. 784; Jones. V. Machine Co., 27 C.C.A. 133, 82 F. 295; Hogue v. The. City of ......