Taylor v. Bowker
Decision Date | 24 March 1884 |
Citation | 4 S.Ct. 397,28 L.Ed. 368,111 U.S. 110 |
Parties | TAYLOR and another, Ex'rs, etc., v. BOWKER |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
J. H. Drummond, for appellants.
Edwin B. Smith and Wm. T. Putnam, for appellee.
By chapter 46 of the Revised Statutes of Maine of 1857, reenacted in the Revised Statutes of 1871, it is, among other things, provided that Section 19. Also, that Section 20. Further, that Section 34. Still further, that Section 35. These statutory provisions being in force, Bowker, the appellee, on the seventh day of June, 1866, brought his action against the Piscataqua Fire & Marine Insurance Company, in the supreme judicial court of Maine, for the county of York, to recover the sum due him on a policy issued by that company, in the sum of $5,000, upon his interest in a certain vessel. It was duly entered at the September term, 1866, of that court. Before judgment was obtained the legislature of Maine, by an act approved February 28, 1867, accepted the surrender of the charter of the company, declaring therein that 'its affairs shall be wound up in the manner provided in sections nineteen and twenty of chapter forty-six of the Revised Statutes, and the organization of the company shall continue for the purposes provided for in said sections: provided, that so much of said acts, or the act incorporating said company, or the act amending the same, as confer any special remedies against officers or stockholders of said corporation, shall not be affected hereby; nor shall this act relieve them from any personal liabilities under any of said acts, or under any of the statutes of this state, or prevent any creditor from pursuing any remedies con- ferred by chapter one hundred and thirteen of the Revised Statutes.' Section 1. Also, that Section 2.
In the action instituted by Bowker, judgment in his behalf was entered April 4, 1868, and execution thereon was issued April 8, 1868. It was returned July 8, 1868, with an indorsement by the officer that after diligent search he had been unable to find any property of the corporation wherewith to satisfy it. Before that judgment was rendered, the supreme judicial circuit court for York county, in accordance with the provisions of the Revised Statutes, appointed trustees to take charge of the estate and affairs of the company, with power to collect its debts, and to prosecute and defend suits at law. The present suit was instituted April 11, 1874, by Bowker,—he being a citizen of Massachusetts,—in the circuit court of the United States for the district of Maine, to enforce the rights given to him, as a judgment creditor, by the statutes of Maine. The defendants were William Hill, the testator of appellants, and the trustees, to whom had been committed the custody of the property of the insurance company. Hill was the treasurer, and a stockholder of the company. The bill proceeds upon the ground that the company, prior to the surrender of its charter, had, in violation of the statute, made a division of portions of its property. The bill avers that it had, and that its corporators still have, property which cannot be attached; that Hill, at the commencement of the suit, had possession of part of the property so unlawfully divided, which could not be attached. The prayer of the bill is that the complainant's judgment be satisfied from the property so divided, transferred, and delivered to Hill, or from its proceeds. The trustees answered that there were no assets in their hands with which to satisfy the judgment. Hill demurred upon the ground that the bill made no case entitling complainant to the discovery or relief asked. The demurrer was overruled, and Hill answered. One of the defenses is that the complainant's cause of action was barred by the statutes of limitations of Maine. Upon final hearing a decree was entered against Hill for the amount of his judgment against the company.
The only point seriously insisted upon in argument, or which is necessary to be considered, is that this suit was barred by limitation. The Revised Statutes of Maine, in force when it was brought, provided that 'all actions of assumpsit or upon the case, founded on any contract or liability, express or implied,' should be commenced 'within six years next after the cause of action accrues, and not afterwards.' Rev. St. Me. 1857, c. 81, § 92. The judgment against the company was entered more than six years before the commencement of...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Straton v. New
...at law. Jones v. Green, 1 Wall. 330, 17 L. Ed. 553; Dunphy v. Kleinschmidt, 11 Wall. 610, 614, 20 L. Ed. 223; Taylor v. Bowker, 111 U. S. 110, 116, 4 S. Ct. 397, 28 L. Ed. 368; National Tube Works Co. v. Ballou, 146 U. S. 517, 13 S. Ct. 165, 36 L. Ed. 1070. The bill in this case assumes the......
-
Coleman v. Hagey
...creditors to sue to set aside transfers is that courts of equity are not tribunals for the collection of debts. Taylor v. Bowker, 111 U. S. 110, 4 Sup. Ct. 397, 28 L. Ed. 368; Howe v. Whitney, 66 Me. 17; Fleming v. Grafton, 54 Miss. 79. A further reason, as has been said by one of our Court......
-
Coleman v. Hagey
... ... by possession as tenant was notice of the change of ... ownership. Hudson v. Cahoon, 193 Mo. 547; Bonney ... v. Taylor, 90 Mo. 63; Henebery v. Johnson, 95 ... Ill.App. 537; Graham v. Railroad, 102 U.S. 148; ... Schreyer v. Scott, 134 U.S. 405; Bank v ... set aside transfers is that courts of equity are not ... tribunals for the collection of debts. [ Taylor v ... Bowker, 111 U.S. 110, 28 L.Ed. 368, 4 S.Ct. 397; ... Howe v. Whitney, 66 Me. 17; Fleming v ... Grafton, 54 Miss. 79.] A further reason, as has been ... ...
-
Ozan Lumber Co. v. Davis Sewing Mach. Co.
...to judgment at law, it could not be made the basis of relief in equity. This is well settled by the decisions of this court in Taylor v. Bowker, 111 U.S. 110, National Tube Works Co. v. Ballou, 146 U.S. 523, and Scott v. Neely, 140 U.S. 106, 115. In this latter case the subject is fully rev......