Steiner v. Parker

Decision Date16 January 1896
Citation19 So. 386,108 Ala. 357
PartiesSTEINER ET AL. v. PARKER ET AL.
CourtAlabama Supreme Court

Appeal from chancery court, Escambia county; Jere N. Williams Judge.

Action by Steiner & Lobman and others against J. M. Parker & Co. and others; praying that certain attachments be declared part of a general assignment, and for other relief. There was a decree for defendants, and plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.

The bill alleged that C. D. & S.E. Henderson had been doing a general mercantile business at Alco, in Escambia county Ala., and also at Repton, Conecuh county, Ala., and while so engaged became indebted to Steiner & Lobman in a large sum of money, amounting to $945.55, all of which was due before the filing of this bill. The bill also alleges: That the Hendersons, at a different time and place, and under a different name, but the same individuals, became indebted to Stern & Kraus in the sum of $400, and the said Stern & Kraus sued the said Hendersons in the circuit court of Conecuh county, where they were then residing, and recovered a judgment against them on the 9th day of April, 1885, for the sum of $419.04 damages and $10.15 costs. Said judgment was regular in all respects, and an execution was regularly and duly issued upon the same on the 25th day of April, 1885 which was returned by the sheriff, "No property found." That on the 26th day of March, 1891, Stern &amp Kraus had a certificate of said judgment issued by the clerk of the circuit court of Conecuh county, and had the same duly recorded in the office of the judge of probate of said county, a copy of which certificate is attached to bill, with indorsements thereon, as "Exhibit A." That, in addition to the said judgment, the said C. D. & S.E. Henderson became indebted to Stern & Kraus, before the filing of this bill in another large sum, evidenced by notes, which notes were due before the filing of this bill. It is alleged in the bill that the complainants requested the said C. D. &amp S.E. Henderson to make them a written statement as to their condition, which they did on the 21st day of July, 1894 stating therein, among other things, that they were worth, net, over and above their total liabilities, §5,450, and, in addition, stated that they were not in debt in any sum whatever to their relatives, or any of them. The bill further alleges that about November 1, 1894, the said C. D. & S.E. Henderson had a stock of goods at Alco, Escambia county, of the value of $5,000, and a stock of goods at Repton, Conecuh county, of the value of $2,000, upon which latter stock, in Conecuh county, the judgment of Stern & Kraus was a lien; that the said Hendersons also owed divers other parties large sums of money. The bill further alleges, that a day prior to the attachments hereinafter named, one of the Hendersons visited Mobile for the purpose of consulting with the Christian & Craft Grocery Company, a corporation resident in Mobile, and a creditor of the said Hendersons, and while there it was agreed between said corporation and the said Henderson that the Christian & Craft Grocery Company should attach the goods of the Peters Store Company, and in pursuance thereof the said Henderson immediately returned home, and upon the same train the Christian & Craft Grocery Company sent an attachment bond, filed out in blank, and also an attachment affidavit, to certain attorneys in Brewton, Escambia county, who had been the attorneys of the Hendersons up to this time. The bill further alleges: That said attorneys, before the levying the attachment of the Christian & Craft Grocery Company, caused an attachment to issue in favor of John M. Parker & Co. for the sum of $98. That the attachment affidavit in that case was made, and the bond made, by the same attorneys. Immediately thereafter the same attorneys had the Christian & Craft Grocery Company attachment to issue, purporting to be placed in the hands of the sheriff eight minutes after the Parker attachment was placed there, and a few minutes thereafter an attachment of Mrs. S. A. Henderson, wife of S.E. Henderson, was sued out by the same attorneys, and that after this other attachments were issued, but none of said attaching plaintiffs were interested in this case, from the fact that the three named above will consume all the assets. Parker & Co. are nonresidents of the state of Alabama. That the Christian & Craft Company is a corporation with its principal place of business at Mobile, Ala. That S. A. Henderson, E. S. McMillan, C. D. Henderson, and S.E. Henderson reside in Escambia county, Ala. That R. F. Irwin resides in Conecuh county, Ala. The bill further alleges that all of said attachments, including the one issued in favor of the wife of S.E. Henderson, were issued upon the grounds that the said C. D. & S.E. Henderson "have moneys, property, or effects liable to satisfy their debts, which they fraudulently withhold," when, in truth and fact, no such grounds existed, nor did any ground exist. The bill further alleges that the said C. D. & S.E. Henderson entered into an agreement and understanding with the creditors named above, and their attorneys, that a priority or preference should be given by the said Hendersons to said creditors over their other creditors, and that in pursuance of said agreement and understanding the above attachments were sued out and levied; that the Hendersons knew before the attachments were sued out that they were going to be sued out, and that notwithstanding the fact that no ground whatever existed for the issuance of the same; that they have submitted to it, and have not brought any suit for damages upon any of said bonds, and (upon information and belief) that they do not intend to do so, thus carrying out the predetermined design and agreement between them and the said creditors to hinder, delay, and defraud their other creditors, including complainants; that said attachments created a preference, and an equivalent to a conveyance by the Hendersons of substantially all their property in payment of a prior debt. The bill further alleges that E. S. McMillan, as sheriff of Escambia county, and R. F. Irwin, as sheriff of Conecuh county, took possession of the property described above, and intent to shortly sell the same, and will pay over the proceeds to the attaching creditors named, in the order of their priority, unless prevented by this honorable court, when in truth and fact the debts claimed by said attaching creditors are to a very large degree simulated, and some of the attaching creditors are insolvent. (The last allegation upon information and belief.) It was further averred that the said attachment constituted together one general assignment for the benefit of all the creditors of the said Hendersons. The bill further alleges that branch writs of attachment were issued by the clerk of the circuit court of Escambia county, directed to the sheriff of Conecuh county, which branch writs were received by the sheriff of Conecuh county in the order set forth heretofore by the sheriff of Escambia county; that the said sheriff of Conecuh county took possession of the stock of goods at Repton, Conecuh county,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
21 cases
  • Crowson v. Cody
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • 8 Abril 1926
    ......v. Bigelow, . 188 Mass. 315, 74 N.E. 653, 108 Am.St.Rep. 479; Hart v. Hart, 39 Miss. 221, 77 Am.Dec. 668; 10 R.C.L. p. 467, §. 239; Steiner v. Parker & Co., 108 Ala. 357, 19 So. 386. . . In. Richard v. Steiner Bros., 152 Ala. 303, 304, 44 So. 562, 563, it is said:. . ......
  • National Park Bank of New York v. Louisville & N.R. Co.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • 1 Febrero 1917
    ...... is general, the ruling will be referred to the grounds that. are well taken. Steiner v. Parker & Co., 108 Ala. 357, 19 So. 386; Tatum v. Tatum, 111 Ala. 209, 20. So. 341; Richard v. Steiner Bros., 152 Ala. 303, 44. So. 562; ......
  • Murrell v. Peterson
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • 16 Marzo 1909
    ...given a wrong reason for a proper ruling. See Hoopes v. Crane, 56 Fla. ----, 47 So. 992, and authorities there cited; Steiner v. Parker, 108 Ala. 357, 19 So. 386; McDonald v. Pearson, 114 Ala. 630, 21 So. 534; Lamar & Rankin Drug Co. v. Jones (Ala.) 46 So. 763. As to the principles applicab......
  • First Nat. Bank v. Fountain Motor Co.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • 11 Mayo 1933
    ...its ruling upon a ground not well taken. To this extent counsel for appellee is sustained by the previous rulings of this court. Steiner v. Parker, supra; Patten Swope, supra. We are therefore at liberty to consider all grounds of demurrer, which were assigned to the bill as a whole. The in......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT