Lang v. Lang
| Citation | 64 Wis. 525,25 N.W. 650 |
| Parties | LANG v. LANG AND ANOTHER, DEFENDANTS, AND SIMMONS, GARNISHEE. |
| Decision Date | 01 December 1885 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from circuit court, Fond du Lac county.Sutherland & Sutherland, for appellant, William Lang.
Elihu Colman, for respondent, M. W. Simmons.
This is a garnishee action, in which Simmons is garnishee in the action of the appellant against D. C. Lang and J. H. Lang. The Langs were debtors of the appellant, and the garnishee claims to be the assignee of said debtors under a voluntary assignment made by the Langs before the garnishee action was commenced. The only question in the case is whether the assignment is void, under our statutes, as to the appellant, a creditor of the assignors at the time the assignment was made.
The learned counsel for the appellant urge that the assignment is void for three reasons: (1) That it is void under our laws, because it prefers one of the creditors of the assignors for a debt due from them which was not due for the wages of laborers, servants, or employes of the assignors. (2) That it is void because it conveys both the firm property and the individual property of the assignors and directs the payment of all creditors equally. (3) The assignment is void for uncertainty because the schedule of creditors who were preferred as laborers, servants, and employes did not, when the assignment was made, and before the schedule was filed, state the sums due to each of them.
The facts with regard to the preferred creditors in the assignment, which the appellant claims render the assignment void, are as follows: Among the creditors preferred are Bates & Barrett, who are preferred for the sum of $150. The evidence shows that Bates & Barrett operate a sort of variety wood-works in Fond du Lac and take contracts for all kinds of light wood-work. They have a shop or factory run by steam-power, and have men at work for them in such shop or factory. The assignors had a contract with Bates & Barrett to do certain work for them. The assignors furnished hard-wood timber, which Bates & Barrett sawed into strips and beaded for the assignors; and the strips so prepared were used by the assignors in their business as trunk-makers. The arrangement between the assignors and Bates & Barrett was in substance this: Assignors furnished rough timber or planks, and Bates & Barrett were to saw and work up the timber according to the direction of the assignors. They were to pay Bates & Barrett $15 per thousand feet for working up the lumber; and they made payment to Bates & Barrett at the rate of $50 per month.
When the assignment was made, the assignors were indebted to Bates & Barrrett for work done under such an arrangement in the sum of $150. How long the debt had been accumulating was not made certain by the evidence. The counsel for appellant claim that the assignment is void because by its terms this debt of Bates & Barrett is a preferred debt.
Section 1, c. 349, Laws 1883, reads as follows: “Any and all assignments hereafter made for the benefit of creditors which shall contain or give any preference to one creditor over another creditor, except for the wages of la borers, servants, or employes earned within six months prior thereto, shall be void.” Section 2, c. 48, Laws 1885, reads as follows: “In every voluntary assignment hereafter made for the benefit of creditors the claims of all servants, clerks, or laborers for personal service or wages owing from the assignor for services or labor performed for three months preceding such assignment shall be preferred over the claims of all other creditors, and shall be paid first by the assignee after the payment of costs, debts due the United States or the state of Wisconsin, all taxes and assessments levied and unpaid, expenses of the assignment and executing the trust.” It will be seen by reading these two sections of our laws that it is the policy of this state to prevent all preferences in the payment of debts due from the assignors in case of an assignment for the benefit of creditors, except that in the act of 1883 a preference may be declared by the assignor in favor of money due for “the wages of laborers, servants, or employes earned within six months previous to the making of the assignment;” and the law of 1885, without any declaration on the part of the assignor, makes the claims of all servants, clerks, or laborers for personal service or labor performed for the assignors within three months preceding the assignment, preferred claims, to be paid in preference to all others, except those mentioned in said last-named act.
The assignment in this case was made before the enactment of the law of 1885, above quoted, and it is only quoted to show the policy of the legislature in protecting and preferring the claims of laborers, servants, and employes of persons making assignments. It is claimed that notwithstanding the act of 1883 declares the assignment shall be void if any preference is delared thereby except as permitted by said act, that the ends of justice would be promoted by simply declaring the preference illegal and void, and upholding the assignment notwithstanding the illegal preference. It may be that it would have been better had the legislature so declared, and that such a declaration would have better promoted the ends of justice; but the fact remains that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial