Winter v. Howell's Assignee
| Decision Date | 11 October 1900 |
| Parties | WINTER v. HOWELL'S ASSIGNEE. [1] |
| Court | Kentucky Court of Appeals |
Appeal from circuit court, Kenton county.
"To be officially reported."
Action by Harvey Myers, assignee of G. W. Howell, against the National Lead Company and others, for a settlement of the estate of plaintiff's intestate. Judgment refusing to allow claim of L. W. Winter as a preferred claim, and he appeals. Affirmed.
Raynaud G. Gray and Holt & Alexander, for appellant.
Will J Howard, for appellee.
George W. Howell made an assignment to appellee on December 28 1896, for the benefit of his creditors. Howell for some years previous to the assignment manufactured and sold mixed paint and also manufactured a cut-off for cisterns. He was a considerable property owner, and was engaged in some other business pursuits. Appellant was his bookkeeper, and superintendent of the shop where the cut-offs were made, and of the shops where the paints were mixed. He also acted as salesman in the store, and collected rents, and did anything else Howell wanted done. At the time of the assignment a year's salary was due him, amounting to $1,200. He asserted this as a preferred claim, and, the court having adjudged only $600 of it as preferred, he prosecutes this appeal.
By the act approved March 20, 1876 (see Gen. St. p. 877), the employés of a manufacturing establishment assigned for the benefit of creditors were given a lien upon the property embarked in the business for the whole amount due them. Substantially the same provision was made in the act of February 25, 1893 (Sess. Acts 1891-93, p. 513). It is insisted for appellant that his rights are to be determined by these statutes, and not by the statute in force at the time of the assignment, because his contract of service was made while the former acts were in force. This contention cannot be maintained, for the reason that the employés were given no lien until the assignment was made. Their lien arising by virtue of the assignment, and not attaching to the property until it was assigned for the benefit of creditors must be governed by the law in force when the assignment was made. Appellant's rights, therefore, must be determined by the statute in force on December 28, 1896, the date of the assignment under which he claims a lien. The statute then in force is section 2488, Ky. St.: "The said lien shall be superior to the lien of any mortgage or other incumbrance thereafter created and shall be for the whole amount due such employee as such, or due for such material or supplies; that for wages coming due to employees within six months before the property or effect shall in any wise come to be distributed among creditors as provided in ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Central Trust Co. of Illinois v. George Lueders & Co.
...... over a period of several years. In Winter v. Howell's. Assignee (1900) 109 Ky. 163, 58 S.W. 591, the statute. was applied to the case of ......
-
In re Bennett
...... in all cases where property of an employer is placed in the. hands of an assignee, receiver or trustee, claims due for. labor performed within the period of three months prior to. ... of the Kentucky Court of Appeals in Winter v. Howell's Assignee, 109 Ky. 163, 58 S.W. 591, and of. this court in Ohio Falls, etc., Co. v. ......
-
In re I. Rheinstrom & Sons Co.
...lien under the statute was to attach, and held that none of them had happened. It was on this ground alone that the lien was denied. In Winter v. Howell the lien was enforced in lower court to a certain extent. All the Court of Appeals did was deny its enforcement to any greater extent. In ......
-
Southern Coal Co. v. Martin's Fork Coal Co.
...... the capacity of a bookkeeper is entitled to a lien for wages. under Sec. 2487, Ky.Stats.; Winter v. Howell, 109. Ky. 163, 58 S.W. 591, 22 Ky.Law Rep. 697. However, it is. plain from the above ......