Minneapolis Threshing Machine Co. v. Jones

• Decision Date: 01 May 1903
• Docket Number: Nos. 13,415-(76).,s. 13,415-(76).
• Citation: 89 Minn. 184
• Parties: MINNEAPOLIS THRESHING MACHINE COMPANY v. COMMODORE P. JONES and Others.<SMALL><SUP>1</SUP></SMALL>
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

89 Minn. 184

MINNEAPOLIS THRESHING MACHINE COMPANY v. COMMODORE P. JONES and Others.¹

Nos. 13,415-(76).

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

May 1, 1903.

Appeal by plaintiff from an order of the district court for Clay county, Baxter, J., sustaining a general demurrer to the complaint. Affirmed.

C. A. Nye and Lewis E. Jones, for appellant.

Charles S. Marden and Charles C. Houpt, for respondents.

COLLINS, J.

Appeal from an order sustaining a general demurrer interposed by the defendants Jones Land Association, a corporation, and the Flour City National Bank, another corporation, to the plaintiff's complaint.

The complaint is quite long, but the gist of it is that in 1891 the defendant C. P. Jones purchased a threshing outfit from the plaintiff, for which the C. P. Jones Company, which afterwards became the Elmwood Farm Company, a corporation, executed and delivered its promissory note for $1,678.40, payment of which was guarantied by C. P. Jones; that in September, 1896, judgment was duly rendered upon said note in favor of the plaintiff against defendant Jones and the Elmwood Farm Company; that after the maturity of the note, but before judgment was entered, C. P. Jones, the farm company, and the bank entered into a corrupt agreement for the purpose of hindering, delaying, and defrauding the debtor's creditors, and especially the plaintiff, whereby the farm company, which held title to forty-seven hundred acres of land, deeded to the bank said land, and also entered into further and other agreements by means of which the land was to be subsequently conveyed to the defendant Jones Land Association, the object in view in making these last agreements to further hinder, delay, and defraud the plaintiff in the collection of its claim against the maker and the guarantor of the promissory note; that in August, 1901, an execution upon said judgment was duly issued out of the district court and delivered to the sheriff of the proper county, under and by virtue of which the said sheriff levied upon and seized a certain quantity of grain grown upon the land before mentioned, as the property of the judgment debtors, which grain was thereafter sold, and which execution was thereupon returned duly satisfied; that thereafter the bank brought suit in said district court against the sheriff for an alleged conversion of the grain, which suit resulted in an order for judgment against the latter for the value of the property. Then follows the allegation that said sheriff therein obtained a stay of all proceedings in said action and made a motion for a new trial; further,

"That in case said order of said court, directing judgment against said sheriff is not vacated or set aside, that judgment will be entered in said action in favor of said Flour City...