Steinlein v. Halstead

Decision Date10 May 1881
Citation8 N.W. 881,52 Wis. 289
CourtWisconsin Supreme Court
PartiesSTEINLEIN v. HALSTEAD.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Appeal from circuit court La Crosse county.Cameron, Losey & Bunn and F. J. Fuller, for appellant.

Howe & Tourtelotte, for respondent.

ORTON, J.

The vital question in this case is whether the assignment which was offered as the evidence of the plaintiff's title to its property is void on account of the omission of the plaintiff, as assignee, to affix his certificate to the list of creditors, as required by section 1697, Rev. St., before the filing of such list in the office of the clerk. That section provides that “within 10 days after the execution of the assignment the assignor shall also make and file in the office of said clerk a correct inventory of his assets and a list of his creditors, stating the place of residence of each such creditor and the amount due to each, which inventory and list shall each be verified by his oath, and have affixed a certificate of the assignee that the same is correct according to his best knowledge and belief; and a failure to make and file such inventory and list shall render such assignment void; but no mistake therein shall invalidate such assignment or affect the right of any creditor.” It is assumed by the learned counsel of the respondent-- First, that this section in terms requires that the oath and certificate therein mentioned should be made and the certificate affixed before the filing of the inventory and list, and that a failure to do so renders the assignment void; and, secondly, that the statute in this respect is mandatory, and a strict performance of this requirement is a condition precedent to the taking effect and validity of the assignment. The first point is one of construction, and the true meaning and intent of the provision must be ascertained, if possible, from the language itself, in its ordinary use and the relations which the words bear to each other in the formation of the sentence according to generally-accepted rules. The controversy is in relation to the use and meaning of the word “such” in that part of the sentence: “And a failure to make and file such inventory and list shall render such assignment void.”

It appears to us that the most natural and reasonable, as well as the most grammatical, construction of the word “such,” as here used in reference to its antecedent, is that it refers only to “a correct inventory of assets, and a list of creditors, without any reference whatever to the oath of the assignor or the certificate of the assignee: First. Because the oath and certificate are not constituent parts of the inventory and list, but are extraneous and distinct from them, and are merely the verification and certificate of them; and the reference is only to the inventory and list as such, and nothing more. They do not in any sense affect the essential qualities or character of the inventory or list, or make them more correct and perfect than they are inherently so. This reference is to these two specific subjects or things, and to nothing else, and it should not be extended to embrace anything more than what is certainly within its terms. If the language, “such inventory and list,” was intended to have the qualification “so verified and certified,” such an important qualification should be, and probably would have been, clearly expressed. Secondly. This is a reasonable and natural construction, and may as well be made as the other, to say the least of it; and, according to an obvious rule of interpretation, that construction should be adopted which will not increase or extend the causes of forfeiture, or which in this case would render the assignment void. Thirdly. The language, “and a failure to make and file, clearly indicates that the failure spoken of is solely that of the assignor, and limits such failure to the making and filing alone. These are acts which can be done only by the assignor personally. He is required, first, to make a correct inventory and list of his creditors; and, secondly, to file the same. This he has done, and in so doing he has strictly complied with the requirement of the statute. It is the failure of the assignor to do these two particular acts, which he is required personally to perform, which renders his assignment void. Rendering his assignment void is the penalty affixed to his own failure to perform these acts. This plain and simple language cannot be extended by construction to embrace the failure of the assignee to affix his...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Blair v. Anderson
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Kansas
    • 6 Enero 1900
    ...... affect the validity of the assignment. (Swart v. Thomas, 26 Minn. 141, 1 N.W. 830; Steinlein v. Halstead, 52 Wis. 289, 8 N.W. 881; Cribben and. others v. Ellis, Garnishee, etc., 69 Wis. 337,. 34 N.W. 154; Juliand v. Rathbone, 39 Barb. 97;. ......
  • Hartzler v. Tootle
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 31 Octubre 1884
    ......Savage, 3 Mo. 139; Duvall et al. v. Blair et al., 7 Mo. 449; Hardcastle v. Fisher, 24 Mo. 70; Bates v. Ableman, 13 Wis. 644; Steinlin v. Halstead, 52 Wis. 289; Clark v. Mix, 15 Conn. 177; Turner v. Jaycock, 40 N. Y. 470; Woodward v. Marshall, 22 Pick. 468 and 473; Hollister v. Loud et al., 2 ......
  • Mather v. McMillan
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin
    • 15 Mayo 1884
    ...this question has been decided in three late cases in this court, viz.: Farwell v. Gundry, 52 Wis. 269;S. C. 9 N. W. REP. 11;Steinlein v. Halstead, 52 Wis. 289;S. C. 8 N. W. REP. 881;Wadleigh v. Scheiderer, 15 N. W. REP. 838. All that was said by Mr. Justice LYON in the first case, touching......
  • Haben v. Harshaw
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin
    • 29 Enero 1884
    ...to this section has been considered by the court in two cases: Farwell v. Gundry, 52 Wis. 268, [S. C. 9 N. W. REP. 11,] and Steinlein v. Halstead, 52 Wis. 289, [S. C. 8 N. W. REP. 881.] In the first case it was held that the omission to include in the inventory filed a piece of real estate ......
  • 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