Strong v. Krebs
Strong v. Krebs
Opinion of the Court
delivered the opinion of the court.
The only'idea on which this bill could be maintained is, that there was a trust between the- parties to the contract set forth by it, but we fail to discover any such fiduciary relation springing from the contract as to enable a court of chancery to redress the wrong done by its violation. It presents the ordinary instance of a contract whose violation may be amply compensated for by damages in an action at,law, and the fact that a judgment for damages would yield no fruit because of insolvency does not change the rule.
The claim of the complainants is not stronger than that of the merchant who furnished the means to produce a crop of cotton upon the promise of the producer to ship the cotton in discharge of the debt for the means to make it, and it was held that the creditor had no equity as to the cotton which a court of chancery could specifically enforce. Allen v. Montgomery, 48 Miss. 101.
The complainants had no lien, by virtue of the contract, on the logs or sawed lumber, and, if they were owners of these things, an action at law was the appropriate remedy for recovery.
It was not in legal contemplation a fraud for Mead Bros, to make an assignment of their property, including the logs and lumber, for creditors with a preference for others than the complainants. However strong the moral claim may be of the seller of goods that they shall not be devoted to the payment of others instead of him, if he has no lien, it results from the ownership of his vendee that this' may occur.
Affirmed.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- J. C. Strong, Assignee v. H. F. Krebs, Assignee
- Cited By
- 3 cases
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- Chancery. Breach of contract. Remedy at law. Assignment preferring creditors. D. leased M. a saw-mill site and made advances to him to run the mill to be erected thereon. M. agreed to buy logs from D., and to sell him all the lumber manufactured at the mill. M. became insolvent and assigned his saw-mill, lease of the mill site, logs received from D., and lumber on hand to K. for the benefit of other creditors than D., and without having paid his indebtedness to the latter. D. filed a bill in chancery to have the property so assigned to K. subjected to the payment of his debt. Held, that D. has no lien on the property, nor is there a fiduciary relation between the parties. The case presents simply a breach of contract, which can be amply compensated for by an action at law; and, in contemplation of law, the ■assignment is not fraudulent because it prefers certain creditors to the exclusion of D.