Jones v. North P. Fish & Oil Co.

• Citation: 84 P. 1122,42 Wash. 332
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Decision Date: 17 March 1906
• Parties: JONES et al. v. NORTH PACIFIC FISH & OIL CO. et al.

84 P. 1122

42 Wash. 332

JONES et al. v. NORTH PACIFIC FISH & OIL CO. et al.

Supreme Court of Washington

March 17, 1906

Appeal from Superior Court, King County; Boyd J. Tallman, Judge.

Action by Walter C. Jones and others against the North Pacific Fish & Oil Company and others. From a judgment for plaintiffs defendant M. B. Bosworth appeals. Affirmed.

Sweeney & Steiner, for appellant.

Ira Bronson and D. B. Trefethen, for respondents.

FULLERTON J.

The defendant the North Pacific Fish & Oil Company is a corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of this state, having its principal place of business in the city of Seattle. During the fishing season of 1904 it engaged in the business of catching and curing fish, at Grace Harbor, in the territory of Alaska. On its catch for that season, together with certain of its other personal property at that place, it gave a chattel mortgage to the appellant M. B. Bosworth to secure a promissory note it was owing him amounting to the sum of $1,075. The mortgage was duly recorded according to the laws of Alaska governing the recording of such instruments. The respondents Jones Hanson, Farner, and Boyd, were employés of the defendant corporation, and assisted in catching and curing the fish which the appellant's mortgage covered. In the early part of November, 1904, the fish were shipped to the city of Seattle by the defendant corporation, with the knowledge and consent of the appellant. Shortly after the arrival of the fish in Seattle the appellant obtained possession of the bill of lading from an office of the company at that place, and started to repack the fish for shipment to Japan; but shortly afterwards gave a bill of sale of the same to the defendant Kelly-Clark Company; this sale, however, seems not to have been consummated. About this time the respondents above named filed a laborers' lien upon the fish to secure the payment of certain wages due them from the defendant corporation which they had earned while in the employ of the corporation in Alaska in catching and curing the fish. On filing the lien, they began this action to foreclose the same, and applied for, and after notice and hearing obtained, the appointment of a receiver to take charge of the property pending the determination of the action. The receiver took the property into his possession, and thereafter sold it under an order of court, and at the time of final judgment held the proceeds of the sale in lieu of the property.

The appellant defended the action, claiming a superior lien thereon by virtue of his chattel mortgage, and his possession under the bill of lading. After a trial the court held that neither the appellant nor the respondents had a lien upon the fish, but held that the corporation was insolvent, and that both parties were entitled to share in its property, and it apportioned the same between them according to the amounts of their respective demands. The sum received by the receiver from the sale of the fish was sufficient to satisfy the...