Willis v. Curtze

• Decision Date: 19 May 1902
• Docket Number: 37
• Citation: 203 Pa. 111,52 A. 5
• Parties: Willis, Appellant, v. Curtze
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

52 A. 5

203 Pa. 111

Willis, Appellant, v. Curtze

No. 37

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

May 19, 1902

Argued April 28, 1902

Appeal, No. 37, Jan. T., 1902, by plaintiff, from judgment of C.P. Erie Co., Sept. T., 1900, No. 108, on verdict for defendant in case of R. B. Willis v. International Construction Company, with notice to F. F. Curtze, Garnishee. Affirmed.

Foreign attachment. Before WALLING, P.J.

At the trial it appeared that the International Construction Company had a contract with the Erie Transit Company for the construction of an electric railway from Erie to Cambridge Springs. The contractor was to receive for the building of the road, stock and bonds of the company. W. C. Culbertson bought some of the bonds, and was willing to take others if he were assured that the road would be completed. It was accordingly arranged that he should deposit the price of the additional bonds with F. F. Curtze, garnishee, and that the latter should use the money to pay for materials and labor necessary for the completion of the road, as the work progressed.

Defendant presented this point:

1. If the jury find from the evidence that the funds in the hands of the garnishee was furnished by Mr. Culbertson under an agreement with the International Construction Company that said funds were to be used for the payment of materials etc., thereafter to be furnished and put into the road, and that Curtze paid out said funds in accordance with the said agreement, then and in that case the plaintiff cannot recover and the verdict must be for the defendant. Answer: Affirmed [1]

Plaintiff presented these points:

2. If the jury find from the evidence that the bonds of the electric railway were the property of the International Construction Company and owned by them at the time of the sale of said bonds to W. C. Culbertson, the money derived from the sale of the same would belong to said company and be liable to attachment. Answer: Refused under the facts in this case.

3. The defendant company could not dispose of their goods and effects, money and credits in preference to certain creditors as against the right of the plaintiff, a creditor of said company. Answer: Refused. [3]

4. The defendant company could not make F. F. Curtze a trustee of money belonging to said company, to be paid to certain creditors of the company to the exclusion of the plaintiff and any money in the hands of F. F. Curtze, trustee, at the time of the attachment, or coming into his hands as such trustee up to the present time, would be liable to the attachment. Answer: Refused. [4]

Verdict and judgment for defendant. Plaintiff appealed.

Errors assigned were (1-4) above instructions, quoting them.

The judgment is affirmed.

J. Ross Thompson, of J. Ross Thompson & Son, with him George M Fletcher, for appellant. -- A debtor cannot dispose of his property by sale and place the proceeds in the hands of a third party so as to prevent a bona fide judgment creditor...