Lapp v. Van Norman
| Decision Date | 15 February 1884 |
| Citation | 19 F. 406 |
| Parties | LAPP and others v. VAN NORMAN and another. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota |
Merrick & Merrick, for Bennett, assignee.
O'Brien & Wilson, contra.
It is not necessary to decide on this motion whether the assignment is fraudulent on its face. True, the assignors have expressly reserved an interest to themselves, and authorized the assignee to pay over to them any surplus that may remain, to the exclusion of those creditors who do not file a release and participate in the assets of the estates. It is doubtful whether such a provision is in harmony with the law, but in the view taken by the court this question will not be considered. The affidavits introduced by the assignee at the hearing show that the sheriff of Hennepin county was in possession of and legally controlled the store and stock, when a demand was made by virtue of the assignment and the possession of the property surrendered by the deputy. The United States marshal of this district had attempted to make a levy after the sheriff had taken possession, but he could not rightfully interfere with that officer, and there was no voluntary surrender to him of the property seized. It also fairly appears by the affidavits of Bennett, the assignee, A. B. Van Norman, Peterson, deputy sheriff, and A. N. Merrick, that after the sheriff or his deputy had surrendered the possession on demand of the assignee and released the property, the United States marshal immediately took the same by virtue of a writ of attachment issued out of the circuit court of the United States for the district of Minnesota. It is by virtue of this seizure that the marshal holds the property. On this statement of the facts I shall not decide on this motion who has the better title and right to the possession of the property taken.
Mather v. Nesbit, 13 F. 872, has no application to the facts here. The writ of attachment properly issued in this suit against the debtor, and if the marshal has seized the property which belonged to Bennett, he is certainly liable in an action of trespass for the damages thereby sustained.
It is claimed that the property in the possession of the assignee is in custodia legis and not subject to seizure by writ of attachment. I do not agree to this. The statute of Minnesota March, 1881, did not validate all assignments purporting to be made in pursuance thereof, and forbid a judicial investigation;...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
National Bank of Republic v. George M. Scott & Co.
...Rothschild v. Harbrook, (la.) 65 F. 283; Mathews v. Ott, 87 Wis. 399; Jones v. McCornick, 82 F. 295; Adler v. Ecker, 2 Fed., 126; Lapp v. Van Norman, 19 F. 406; v. Bank, 12 R. I., 460. This court has from early time applied the statute of frauds to assignments. Beus v. Shaughnessy, 2 Utah 4......
-
Durand & Co. v. Howard & Co.
... ... See Adler ... v. Ecker (C.C.) 2 Fed. 126 (1880); Lehman v ... Rosengarten (C.C.) 23 F. 642 (1885); Lapp v. Van ... Norman (C.C.) 19 F. 406 (1884). Such is his status ... except where the statute law of a particular state has ... changed it. The ... ...
-
Swofford Bros. Dry-Goods Co. v. Mills
...on the question. Among those directly in point are the following: Shelby v. Bacon, 10 How. 56; Adler v. Ecker, 2 Fed. 126; Lapp v. Van Norman, 19 F. 406; Lehman 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 Frankfort, ......
-
Lehman v. Rosengarten
... ... the following cases: Shelby v. Bacon, 10 How. 56; ... Griswold v. Central Vermont R. Co. 9 F. 797; ... Adler v. Ecker, 2 F. 126; Lapp v. Van ... Norman, 19 F. 406; Mississippi Mills Co. v ... Ranlett, 19 F. 191 ... The ... demurrer to the plea in abatement is ... ...