White, Potter & Paige Mfg. Co. v. Henry B. Pettes Importing Co.
| Decision Date | 20 May 1887 |
| Citation | 30 F. 864 |
| Parties | WHITE, POTTER & PAGE MANUF'G CO. and others v. HENRY B. PETTES IMPORTING CO. and others. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri |
M. W Huff, for complainants.
Boyle Adams & McKeighan, for defendants.
From the averments of the bill, which have been sustained by the proof, it appears that the 'henry B. Pettes Importing Company,' a Missouri business corporation, in February 1886, and for some months prior thereto, was insolvent, but was still engaged in the prosecution of its ordinary business. It had had large dealings with the Provident Savings Bank, and owed the bank notes to the amount of $28,000. As partial security for such debt, the bank held certain personal property in pledge of the estimated value of about $10,000. The importing company also owed other persons including the complainants, considerable sums of money for goods purchased. In February, 1886, one of the creditors of the importing company sued out an attachment against it, and caused it to be levied on certain property of the corporation. Thereupon the Provident Savings Bank also sued out an attachment in the sum of $18,000, and caused the same to be levied. Six other attachment suits immediately followed. By virtue of the various writs of attachment (which together amounted to $31,373) all of the property of the importing company then in its possession was seized.
It is admitted that the directors of the importing company had no means of their own to employ counsel to defend against the attachment suits, and that they conferred with counsel on the subject of defending the suits, (to the extent, at least, of procuring a dissolution of the attachment liens,) and were advised that it was doubtful whether a dissolution of the attachments could be effected by making a defense. It is furthermore admitted that the board of directors were advised by counsel that in view of the difficulties in the way of defending the suits, and in view of the fact that the attached property would probably be sold at great loss and expense by a judicial order pending the litigation, that it would be better to propose to the Provident Savings Bank to take the attached property by an absolute conveyance, on condition that it would cancel its own debt and discharge the debts of the other attaching creditors. Such proposition was accordingly made to the bank and was accepted. The bank subsequently carried out the arrangement, and received as the net proceeds of the sale of the attached property the sum of $17,306.06. There is no doubt that the importing company received more for the property than its actual value, inasmuch as debts of the company to the extent of $31,373 were canceled by the transaction. The prayer of the bill is in substance that the court will decree that the importing company had become dissolved within the meaning of the Missouri statutes prior to the levy of said writs of attachment; that the funds realized by the Provident Savings Bank from the sale of the attached property be declared a trust fund for the benefit of creditors of the importing company; and that the directors of the company be held as trustees of the assets which were attached and subsequently transferred to the bank. In other words, this bill proceeds upon the theory that the insolvency of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Durlacher v. Frazer
...of other persons that an individual has. (113 U.S. 534; 31 F. 151; 32 S.W. 300, Md.; 17 So. 528; 18 id., 619; 28 S.W. 286; 56 N.W. 116; 30 F. 864; 34 A. 316; Conway v. Merc. Co., 6 Wyo. 468.) It is believed, however, that, in this case, the debts secured are shown to have been the debts of ......
-
T. A. Shaw & Co. v. Robinson & Stokes Co.
... ... Wood, 37 N.Y. 317; Robinson v. Smith, 3 Paige Ch ... [N.Y.], 222; Aberdeen R. Co. v ... L. R. 7 H. L. [Eng.], 633; Sutton ... Mfg". Co. v. Hutchinson, 63 F. 496.) ... \xC2" ... Co. 50 Conn. 597; ... Southern White Lead Co. v. Haas, 73 Iowa 404; ... Warren v ... Milroy v. Eage, 30 F. 544; White v. Pettes, ... 30 F. 864; Sanford Fork Co. v. Howe, ... ...
-
The Waggoner-Gates Milling Company v. The Ziegler-Zaiss Commission Company
...v. Shaw Carriage Co., 25 F. 577; Tank Line Co. v. Varnish Co., 45 F. 7; Kankakee, etc., Co. v. Kampe, 38 Mo.App. 229; White, etc., Mfg. Co. v. Importing Co., 30 F. 864; Adams v. Milling Co., 35 F. 433; Howe, Brown & Co. v. Sanford, etc., Co., 44 F. 231. The last case has since been overrule......
-
Boston Elevated Ry. Co. v. Metropolitan Transit Authority
... ... fundamental prerequisite. White, Potter & Paige Manuf ... Co. v. Henry B. s Importing Co. 30 F. 864, 865 (C. C. E ... D. Mo. E. D.) ... ...