Tomlinson & Webster Mfg. Co. v. Shatto
| Decision Date | 02 April 1888 |
| Parties | TOMLINSON & WEBSTER MANUF'G CO. v. SHATTO. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota |
George C. Ripley, for plaintiff.
Charles H. Woods and Fred W. Reed, for defendant.
A motion is made for a receiver, after disclosure, upon an examination in proceedings supplementary to execution, in accordance with the state law and practice.
The appointment of a receiver is opposed for the reason that after the proceedings had been instituted, and an order served upon the judgment debtor forbidding any disposal of his property or interference therewith, he made a voluntary assignment to an assignee of his own selection under the insolvent law of the state of Minnesota, enacted in 1881. I have duly considered the case presented by the arguments of counsel and find:
1. That the return of the execution unsatisfied entitled the plaintiff to the order for the examination of the judgment debtor, and the order forbidding any transfer of his property, or interference therewith by him, so that property not subject to execution could be reached and applied to the payment of the judgment.
2. That the order for the examination of the debtor when issued and served gave the plaintiff a lien on the equitable assets of the debtor.
3. That he was at this time entitled to the appointment of a receiver to aid in the application of the debtor's property interests to the payment of the judgment, and the assignment after the commencement of the supplementary proceedings should not prevent the appointment.
4. This proceeding supplementary to execution is a substitute for a creditor's bill, and has a greater scope, and when properly commenced the vigilance of the judgment creditor is rewarded by a priority and lien upon equitable assets; and the discovery upon the examination in this case shows equitable assets; and that the plaintiff is entitled to a receiver.
5. The examination also shows real estate belonging to the judgment debtor in Dakota territory, which is only incumbered by mortgages, the legal title being in him. It is necessary for full relief that a conveyance should be made by the judgment debtor of this property, and the power and legal authority of this court is ample to enforce it, by an order; upon the defendant to make such a conveyance.
6. The law fixes the time of the return of the execution by the officer, at any time within 60 days. After the return of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Guerney v. Moore
... ... Renaud v ... O'Brien, 35 N.Y. 99; Tomlinson v. Mfg. Co., ... 34 F. 380; Leverett v. Read, 54 Ala. 531; Hower ... that circuit in Tomlinson, etc., Mfg. Co v. Shatto , ... 34 F. 380, in an opinion by Judge Nelson, held that as the ... law ... ...
-
Reese v. Baker
... ... 123; Burt v. Hoettinger, 28 ... Ind. 214, text 218; Tomlinson & Webster Mfg. Co. v ... Shatto (C. C.) 34 F. 380, text 381; Towne v ... ...
-
United States v. Ross
...of the court property outside of the court's jurisdiction. Ager v. Murray, 105 U.S. 126, 26 L.Ed. 942; Tomlinson & Webster Mfg. Co. v. Shatto, C.C.D. Minn., 34 F. 380; Pouliot v. West India Fruit Co., 283 Mass. 182, 186 N.E. 52; Bailey v. Ryder, 10 N.Y. 363; Fenner v. Sanborn, N.Y.Sup.Ct., ......
-
Bean v. Heron
...subject of an action by him. Flint v. Webb, 25 Minn. 263; Dunham v. Byrnes, 36 Minn. 106, 30 N.W. 402; Beach, Rec. § 628; Tomlinson & W. Mnfg. Co. v. Shatto, 34 F. 380. Such proceedings take the place of a creditor's bill are in the nature of an equitable execution. Riddle & Bullard, Supp. ......