Robinson Notion Co. v. Ormsby

• Decision Date: 04 January 1892
• Citation: 33 Neb. 665,50 N.W. 952
• Parties: ROBINSON NOTION CO. v. ORMSBY ET AL.
• Court: Nebraska Supreme Court

33 Neb. 665

50 N.W. 952

ROBINSON NOTION CO.

v.ORMSBY ET AL.

Supreme Court of Nebraska.

Jan. 4, 1892.

Syllabus by the Court.

One A., who was engaged in the mercantile business, being considerably indebted for goods, traded his stock, which was worth about $2,000, for wild land of questionable value, and incumbered, whereupon a creditor to whom he was indebted for goods attached the stock. Held, that sufficient cause was shown for an attachment, and that the district court erred in discharging it.

Error to district court, Butler county; MARSHALL, Judge.

Action by the J. T. Robinson Notion Company against Ormsby & Swayzee and George Ormsby and Wesley Swayzee to recover for goods sold. From an order sustaining defendants' motion to dismiss the attachment, plaintiff brings error. Reversed.J. H. Grim, W. E. Bauer, and Steele Bros., for plaintiff in error.

Matt Miller and E. R. Dean, for defendants in error.

MAXWELL, J.

On the 2d day of March, 1889, plaintiff in error commenced an action in the district court of Butler county against the defendants to recover the sum of $487.33 for goods and merchandise sold and delivered to defendants, who were then engaged in the mercantile business in Dwight, Neb. On the same day an attachment was issued against the property of defendants in said case on the ground that they had disposed of their property with intent to defraud their creditors; and on the 6th day of March, 1889, the sheriff attached the stock of goods and merchandise as belonging to defendants and of the value of $______. The defendants moved to dissolve said attachment for the reason that the statements made in the affidavit therefor were untrue. The motion was submitted to the court on affidavits and documentary evidence con tained in the record. The court sustained said motion, and dissolved the attachment.The record also shows that subsequent to plaintiff's attachment, to-wit, on the 7th and 8th days of March, 1889, actions were commenced and attachments levied on this same stock of goods and merchandise by the Consolidated Coffee Company, H. T. Clark Drug Company, E. M. Smith, and Sprick & Rigget, said attachments being issued on the same grounds as the attachment of this plaintiff. All of said attachments were prosecuted to judgment, and said stock of goods and merchandise ordered sold to satisfy their claims, without objection on the part of defendants. It further appears from the records that on February 27, 1889, just prior to this attachment, while defendants owed large sums...