Parsons v. Tillman
Decision Date | 26 May 1884 |
Docket Number | 11,029 |
Citation | 95 Ind. 452 |
Parties | Parsons et al. v. Tillman et al |
Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
From the Vanderburgh Circuit Court.
The judgment is affirmed, with costs.
A Iglehart, J. E. Iglehart, A. Gilchrist and C. H. Butterfield for appellants.
C Denby, D. B. Kumler, A. C. Tanner and W. W. Ireland, for appellees.
Henry E. Blemker, William H. Tillman and Michael Gorman for many years constituted the firm of Blemker, Tillman & Co., engaged in the manufacture and sale of stoves and other kindred articles of merchandise at Evansville, in this State.
At the time of its dissolution Byron Parsons and Charles E. Scoville were endorsers for the firm in the aggregate sum of more than $ 20,000.
In May, 1882, Blemker, Parsons and Scoville filed their complaint in the court below against Tillman, Gorman and others, praying, amongst other things, a dissolution of the firm and the appointment of a receiver to close up its business, and the proceedings which followed resulted in the dissolution of the firm and the appointment of a receiver.
On the 28th day of June, 1882, Sophia Tillman, the wife of William H. Tillman, above named, having become the owner and holder of certain promissory notes executed by the firm to one Mary Raben, her step-daughter, obtained judgment in the superior court of Vanderburgh county against Blemker, Tillman & Co. upon those notes for $ 3,581.38. Afterwards Mrs. Tillman filed the judgment thus obtained as a claim against the assets in the hands of the receiver, and asked for an order for its payment as a partnership claim. Parsons and Scoville thereupon, as creditors of the firm, filed objections to the allowance of the claim.
Issues were formed upon the objections thus filed, and at the request of Parsons and Scoville, the circuit court made a special finding of the facts, which may be stated as follows:
That prior to the 14th day of May, 1878, the members of the firm of Blemker, Tillman & Co. made an agreement between themselves by which each was to receive from the firm a compensation for his services, that is to say, Blemker was to be paid $ 1,500 per year, and Tillman and Gorman each $ 4 a day; that Blemker and Gorman each drew his wages in cash from the firm, but that Tillman instead took the notes of the firm from time to time for the services which he performed covering a period of ten years immediately preceding said 14th day of May, 1878, at which time these notes amounted in the aggregate to $ 3,000; that on that day, desiring to make a gift or advancement to his daughter, Mrs. Mary Raben, Tillman surrendered these notes and had new notes executed by the firm for like amounts, payable to her; that no consideration for these new notes moved from Mrs. Raben either to Tillman or the firm; that two other notes of $ 200 each were afterwards given to Mrs. Raben by the firm for interest on the notes which her father had caused to be executed to her as above; that in March, 1882, Mrs. Raben transferred all the notes which had been so executed to her by the firm, to the appellee Mrs. Sophia Tillman, who had then but recently become her father's wife; that the only reason for this transfer was that Tillman, the father, had complained at having been compelled to pay the sum of $ 1,500 as surety for Mrs. Raben's husband; that at the time the first notes were given to Mrs. Raben the firm owed $ 49,296.46, and owned property of the value of $ 70,250.46; that at that time Parsons and Scoville were endorsers for the firm for about $ 20,000, and so continued up to the time the firm was dissolved, and are now creditors for sums paid as such endorsers for the firm for more than $ 20,000; that in May, 1882, a receiver was appointed for the firm; that the receiver has converted all the assets into money, and has paid all the money into court; that the creditors of the firm will receive less than fifty cents on each dollar due them; that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Robinson v. Floyd
... ... contract: Story, Part. § 158; Cummins v ... Cummins, 8 Ir. Eq. 723; Harris v. Lindsay, 4 Wash ... (U.S.) 271; Lindley, Part. 239; Parsons v ... Tillman, 95 Ind. 452; Bacon v. Daniel, 37 Ohio ... 279; Barringer v. Warden, 12 Cal. 311; Delp v ... Brewing Co., 123 Pa. 42; ... ...
-
Morrison v. Kendall
...Clark v. Billings, 59 Ind. 508; Bristol Milling and Mfg. Co. v. Probasco, 64 Ind. 406; McClellan v. Robe, 93 Ind. 298; Parsons v. Tillman, 95 Ind. 452; Kelso v. Fleming, 104 Ind. 180, 3 N.E. The novation attempted to be made by the answer is the substitution of one debtor for another, namel......
-
Hill v. Warner
...6 Ind. App. 212, 33 N. E. 370;Kelso v. Fleming, 104 Ind. 180, 3 N. E. 830;Horn v. McKinney, 5 Ind. App. 348, 32 N. E. 334;Parsons v. Tillman, 95 Ind. 452;McClellan v. Robe, 93 Ind. 298;Davis v. Hardy, 76 Ind. 272;Manufacturing Co. v. Probasco, 64 Ind. 406. In the case at bar there is a fail......
-
Kelso v. Fleming
...of the old debt. Fensler v. Prather, 43 Ind. 119;Clark v. Billings, 59 Ind. 508;Bristol, etc., Co. v. Probasco, 64 Ind. 406;Parsons v. Tillman, 95 Ind. 452. The averment that the payee of the note did release the defendant is the statement of a mere conclusion of law. What has been said con......