Van Lehn v. Morse

• Decision Date: 17 December 1896
• Citation: 16 Wash. 219,47 P. 435
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: VAN LEHN ET AL. v. MORSE, SHERIFF.

47 P. 435

16 Wash. 219

VAN LEHN ET AL. v. MORSE, SHERIFF.

Supreme Court of Washington

December 17, 1896

Appeal from superior court, Clallam county; James G. McClinton Judge.

Action by B. F. Van Lehn and another against S. G. Morse, sheriff and others. The action was dismissed as to all defendants except defendant Morse, and from a judgment for plaintiffs he appeals. Affirmed.

Allen &amp Powell, for appellant.

Brady &amp Gay and Geo. C. Hatch, for respondents.

GORDON J.

This was an action in replevin for the recovery of a stock of general merchandise situated at Port Angeles, in Clallam county. It appears from the record that for several years prior to July, 1893, C. E. and J. Langdon Bell were co-partners, and, as such, conducted a general merchandise store at that place. They were largely in debt, and unable to pay their bills as they matured. On the 28th of July of that year, being pressed by certain of their creditors, they made a bill of sale of their entire stock to the respondents in this action (plaintiffs below). Immediately following the execution of the bill of sale, respondents caused it to be recorded in the office of the auditor of the county, and went into possession of the property in dispute. On the same day, suits were brought by certain creditors of Bell & Co., in which suits attachments were issued and levied upon the property herein involved; and thereupon respondents instituted this action against appellant, Morse, as sheriff, and the attaching creditors, to recover said property or its value. Respondents, in their answer, attack the sale, alleging that it was made by Bell & Co. to hinder, delay, and defraud their creditors, of which intent the plaintiffs had notice; further, that Bell & Co. were largely in debt and insolvent, and were being pressed by their creditors, of which the respondents also had knowledge. Other allegations of the answer need no mention. The court dismissed the action as to all of the defendants except Morse, sheriff, the appellant herein. Upon the trial it was admitted that the value of the stock of goods was $4,000; that the respondents were in possession of the goods when attached; that Bell & Co. were, at the time of sale, indebted to various parties. It also appears that at the time of sale they were insolvent; that the real consideration for the transfer was 200 acres of land, the value of which was placed at from $10 to $20 per acre by witnesses for the respondents, and at from $5 to $10 per acre by witnesses for the defense; also, $500 in cash, $200 in county warrants, and a receipted bill for $100, which Bell & Co. owed one of the respondents herein. The trial resulted in a verdict for plaintiffs, upon which judgment was thereafter entered. Defendants' motion for a new trial was denied, and the cause appealed.

There are a great number of distinct assignments of error set forth in the brief of appellant, all of which have been carefully considered, but many of which do not merit specific mention in this opinion. One of the principal points relied upon for reversal, and the one to which the oral argument of counsel was addressed, is based upon a remark alleged to have been made by the court in ruling upon an objection to the introduction of evidence. It appears from the evidence that one Bickford, an attorney at law, prepared the bill of sale from Bell & Co. to the respondents, and rendered other assistance in connection with the transfer and upon the trial the appellant sought to show by witness Allen that Bickford had, prior to the consummation of the sale, obtained knowledge that Bell & Co. were being pressed by their creditors; and, an objection having been...