Martin v. Hausman
Decision Date | 01 January 1882 |
Parties | MARTIN and others v. HAUSMAN and others. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Missouri |
Botsford & Williams and Henry Wellman, for plaintiffs.
Tichenor Warner & Dean, for defendants.
KREKEL D.J.
This action was commenced in the circuit court of Jackson county Missouri, and removed by the complainants to this court. The bill alleges that plaintiffs are creditors of Stiefel & Ney that the latter were engaged in business at Kansas City Missouri, prior to August 2, 1882, as wholesale dealers in liquors and cigars; and that on the date above set forth they executed to the defendant Hausman a certain deed of trust which is called 'a deed of assignment,' and is in the following language:
This deed was acknowledged and recorded on the day of its execution in the office of the recorder of deeds of Jackson county, Missouri. It further appears from the recitals in the bill that Hausman immediately took possession of the stock in trade and other property conveyed to him by said deed, and that the value thereof was, at the date of the execution of the deed, $75,000. It is alleged therein that said conveyance is an assignment for the benefit of all the creditors of said Stiefel & Ney, and that said Hausman has refused to recognize it as such an instrument, and failed to perform any of the statutory duties imposed upon him as assignee in cases of assignment for the benefit of creditors. It is also stated in the bill that he has refused to recognize the rights of any of the other creditors of Stiefel & Ney, but that, after selling the property described in the deed, he has paid in full the indebtedness due to the Bank of Kansas City and the Anheuser-Busch Brewing Association; that after paying these two creditors in full there is still left the sum of $10,000, which he retains for his costs, charges, and compensation as trustee; that said trustee has always, from the time of accepting said trust, denied the rights of any of the creditors of Stiefel & Ney, excepting the two named in the deed, to any benefit of said conveyance, or to receive any payment of their debts or claims, or any part thereof, from said trust property or the proceeds thereof, and has neglected and refused to execute said trust as required by the law relating to assignments, or to perform all or any of his duties as trustee thereunder; that he has refused to file an inventory, or to cause the goods and effects conveyed to him to be appraised, or to execute any bond for the faithful discharge of his duties as an assignee, or to fix the time and place for adjusting and allowing demands against the estate of said Stiefel & Ney, as insolvents under the assignment law, or to give any notice thereof, or to adjust and allow any demands against said estate, or to pay any such demands in proportion to the amount of each, or in any manner to execute or perform said trust as in cases of assignments.
It is further alleged that Hausman is insolvent, and has parted with all the property except said sum of $10,000; and said Bank of Kansas City and said Anheuser-Busch Brewing Association refuse to account to the other creditors of Stiefel & Ney for the money they have received from said trustee, or any part thereof; that said Stiefel & Ney are indebted in large sums to creditors unknown to the complainants; and this action is commenced for the benefit of so many of said creditors as may join therein, as well as the complainants themselves. The prayer for relief is that the court declare said deed to be for the benefit of all the creditors of said Stiefel & Ney, in proportion to their respective claims; that Hausman be removed from his trust as trustee, and another trustee appointed, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Calihan v. Powers
...of Missouri. In Bank v. Bank, supra, the supreme court of the United States disapproved the doctrine announced by Judge Krekel in Martin v. Hausman, 14 F. 160, and a long line cases which followed it, to the effect that a debtor in Missouri in failing circumstances might prefer one or more ......
-
Jaffrey v. Mathews
... ... correctness of this construction seems to have been ... originated by an opinion of Judge Krekel in Martin v ... Hausman, 14 F. 160, who undertook to lay down the law to ... be that while "a debtor in Missouri, under its ... legislation and ... ...
-
Richmond v. Mississippi Mills
...160; 23 N.W. 646; 15 N.W. 558; 8 Iowa 96; Burrill on Ass., sec. 3; 23 S. C., 405; 31 N.W. 381; 5 A. 523; 19 F. 70; 28 N.W. 380; 14 F. 160; 11 id., 297; 37 Ark. 150; 47 id., 367; 9 S.Ct. If assignments they are void, because no bond was filed, and the sale was to be made contrary to law. 39 ......
-
Dyson v. St. Paul National Bank
... ... by the instrument providing for a trust to the assignee in ... the unemployed balance or surplus. Crow v ... Beardsley, 68 Mo. 435; Martin v. Hausman, 14 F ... 160; Clapp v. Dittman, 21 F. 15; Weber v. Mick, 131 ... Ill. 520 ... Both ... under the Minnesota and ... ...