Valentine v. Decker
| Decision Date | 31 March 1869 |
| Citation | 43 Mo. 583 |
| Parties | VALENTINE et al., Appellants, v. E. W. DECKER, Assignee, Respondent. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court.
Geo. P. Strong, with Ledergerber, Bowman, and Colcord, for appellants.
Krum & Krum, for respondent.
Wiggin & Crowther, a mercantile firm doing business in the city of St. Louis, being in embarrassed circumstances and having a stock of goods in store, made an assignment, in accordance with the provisions of the statute of this State, to E. W. Decker, of all their goods, chattels, and effects, of whatever nature, in trust for the equal benefit of their creditors, share and share alike. The assignee gave bond in compliance with law, took possession of the property, filed an inventory of the assigned effects in the clerk's office of the Circuit Court, appointed appraisers to appraise the property; notice was duly published, and all the proceedings were regularly conducted. With full notice of these facts, Valentine & Co., the appellants, commenced an action of attachment against Wiggin & Crowther, and directed the sheriff of St. Louis county to levy the attachment writ upon the stock of goods assigned, which were in the possession of the assignee; and the sheriff, acting under the direction of Valentine & Co., sold the goods so taken out of the assignee's possession, to satisfy their debt.
After the goods were taken out of his possession, the assignee filed his written notice with the sheriff, claiming the same, but Valentine & Co. refused to release them, and gave an indemnifying bond to the officer and ordered him to proceed with the sale. Suit was subsequently brought on this bond by the assignee, and the same is still pending and undetermined. On the day appointed for the allowance of demands of the creditors before the assignee, the creditors appeared, and their demands were adjusted and allowed--the indebtedness exceeding the assets assigned. Valentine & Co. also presented their demand, the same upon which they had taken and sold the goods. The other creditors objected to the allowance of the demand, and the assignee rejected it. They then appealed to the Circuit Court, where the demand was again rejected and the decision of the assignee approved, and the matter is now brought here. The real point presented is whether Valentine & Co., by their attachment suit, taking the property out of the hands of the assignee and selling the same, are precluded from claiming any benefit in the assignment.
It is not necessary that an express assent should be given on the part of the creditors to enable them to take under an assignment. Where an...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Reitsch v. McCarty
... ... unless the contrary is fully and clearly proved. Burrill, ... Assignm. 6th ed. p. 568; Valentine v. Decker, 43 Mo ... 583; Jefferis's Appeal, 33 Pa. 39; 1 Am. Lead. Cas. (Hare & W.) 303, notes; McLaughlin v. Park City Bank, 22 Utah 473, ... ...
-
National Bank of Commerce v. Ripley
...for appellant's failure to present its claim at the proper time is not such as will relieve it from the bar of the statute. Valentine v. Decker, 43 Mo. 583; v. Lowe, 147 Ill. 564; Claflin Co. v. Kelly, 169 Ill. 20; Lovenberg v. Nat. Bank, 67 Tex. 440; Clendenning v. Perrine, 32 Neb. 155; Ba......
-
McLaughlin v. Park City Bank
...case at bar the intervenor has not only made his election but is still standing upon it. Beifeld v. Martin, 37 P. 32 (Colo.); Valentine v. Decker, 43 Mo. 583; Jefferris's Appeal, 33 Penn. St. 39; Fellows Greenleaf, 43 N.H. 421; Adler, etc., Co. v. Peoples Bank, 46 S.W. 536 (Ark.); O'Bryan v......
-
Stanton v. Boschert
...the benefit of the surplus, is estopped from setting up that the sale to Henseler was fraudulent. Stoller v. Coates, 88 Mo. 514; Valentine v. Decker, 43 Mo. 583; Sutweiler Lackman, 23 Mo. 168. Black, J. Barclay, J., not sitting; Sherwood, C. J., and Brace, J., concur. OPINION Black, J. The ......