Maddox v. Reynolds
Decision Date | 28 May 1904 |
Citation | 81 S.W. 603,72 Ark. 440 |
Parties | MADDOX v. REYNOLDS |
Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Van Buren Circuit Court, ELBRIDGE G. MITCHELL, Judge.
Action by J. W. Reynolds against W. S. Maddox. Plaintiff recovered judgment, from which defendant appealed. Reversed.
STATEMENT BY THE COURT.
During and prior to the month of November, 1896, one Lucy Neeley, as surviving partner of the firm of J. M. Bradford & Co., was doing a mercantile business at Cleveland, in Conway county. At that time her stock of goods was worth about $ 800, and the firm's liabilities were about $ 1,800. Among the liabilities on November 24, 1896, was a note given to one R J. Steel for about $ 275, not yet due. On that date she sold her entire stock of merchandise to him for, about $ 800 taking up her note, and Steel paying to her the remainder of the purchase money. Steel next day sold a large amount of the goods to appellee. Creditors immediately sued out attachments in Conway county, directed to the sheriff of Van Buren county, where the goods were taken. Appellant, as sheriff seized the goods under the writs, part being taken from appellee, and appellee sued in replevin, and the creditors of Lucy Neeley, plaintiffs in the attachment suits, are making the defense for the sheriff.
The complaint, an ordinary complaint in replevin, alleges the value of the goods to be $ 731.21, and that the defendant had, as sheriff, wrongfully levied upon and taken said goods from his possession. The affidavit for replevin sets out a list of the goods, and alleges that the property was taken under attachments against Lucy Neeley. Writ was issued, bond was given, and property delivered to plaintiff (appellee).
Defendant (appellant) answered. He admitted possession by appellee, and justified the taking under several writs of attachment, and specifically charged the sale under which appellee held to be fraudulent, and that he bought with notice of the fraud.
On the first trial appellee obtained a verdict. Appellant appealed. The case was reversed July 13, 1901. Mandate was filed August 24, 1901.
It was proved and admitted that writs of attachment, as alleged in appellant's answer, were issued to the appellant as sheriff of Van Buren county, from the circuit court of Conway county, for the aggregate sum of $ 1,097.96 against the property of Lucy Neeley, as surviving partner of J. M Bradford & Co., and levied upon the property in controversy in this suit, and that judgment was rendered upon said suits in Conway county, and the said attachments sustained. It was further proved and admitted that in levying the attachment the defendant took the property from the plaintiff, who had bought it from R. J. Steel, who had bought it from the said Lucy Neeley, who was the surviving partner of the firm of J M. Bradford & Co., and that it was a part of the said Lucy Neeley's retail stock of merchandise. The proof showed that the said Lucy Neeley owed the said R. J. Steel about $ 275; that a few days before the debt became due he bought a stock of goods from her, consisting of about $ 800 in cash value, as they estimated it, for which he delivered her her note and paid the balance in cash; that at the time of the sale she owed, including the debt to Steel, about $ 1,800, none of which has been paid except Steel's debt, and that she was made insolvent by the sale of the stock of goods, which was a general retail stock of merchandise, kept by her for sale as such until the sale to Steel; that the next day after Steel bought the goods, he sold about $ 700 worth to appellee, who knew that they were a part of the Lucy Neeley stock of goods. The proof also showed that none of the purchase money was paid by appellee until after the service of the writs of attachment upon him, and the goods in controversy had been taken from his possession thereunder, and that said attachments have been since sustained in the Conway circuit court. The proof further tended to show that the sale by Lucy Neeley was made to defraud her creditors, and that Steel knew of it, or knew of sufficient facts to put him on inquiry. Also that appellee bought with knowledge of the fraud, or with knowledge of sufficient circumstances to put him on inquiry. This was all the evidence.
The court, over the objection of the appellant, gave to the jury instructions Nos. 4 and 8, to which the appellant excepted, and made the giving of them a ground of his motion for new trial; and also the court, on motion of the appellant, refused to give to the jury instruction No. 2, asked by the appellant, to which the appellant also excepted, and makes such refusal a ground of his motion for a new trial. Said instructions are as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
El Dorado & Bastrop Railroad Company v. Whatley
...remanded. T. M. Mehaffy and J. E. Williams, for appellant. 1. It is error to instruct a jury on undisputed evidence unless peremptorily. 72 Ark. 440; 69 Ark. 489; 67 Ark. 147. It also error to submit to a jury issues upon which there was no evidence to support a finding. 63 Ark. 177; Id. 56......
-
Rector v. Robins
... ... effect than to confuse and mislead the jury ... Whitmore v. State, 72 Ark. 14, 77 S.W. 598; ... Maddox v. Reynolds, 72 Ark. 440, 81 S.W ... 603; St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co. v ... Spearman, 64 Ark. 332, 42 S.W. 406; St. Louis, ... I. M. & S. Ry ... ...
-
Rector v. Robins
...42 S. W. 406; St. L., I. M. & S. Ry. Co. v. Beecher, 65 Ark. 64, 68, 44 S. W. 715; Whitmore v. State (Ark.) 77 S. W. 598; Maddox v. Reynolds (Ark.) 81 S. W. 603; Kerr v. Topping, 109 Iowa, 150, 80 N. W. 321; Lemasters v. Sou. Pac. Co., 131 Cal. 105, 63 Pac. 128; Chicago, B. & Q. Ry. Co. v. ......
-
T. & C. Insurance Company v. Fouke
...U.S. 617; 89 S.W. 324; 86 Ark. 329; 89 Ark. 522. It is error to submit question to the jury about which there is no evidence. 78 Ark. 553; 72 Ark. 440; 88 Ark. Webber & Webber, for appellee. The witness' statement that the lamp was carefully used was properly admitted. Thom. on Neg., § 7750......