Adams v. Berg

Mississippi Supreme Court October 15, 1887

Adams v. Berg, 65 Miss. 3 (Miss. 1887)

Campbell

Opinion of the Court

Campbell, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

Passing by all other questions, it appears to have been a Control verted question of fact whether the goods were “used'or acquired ” *6in the business of the “R. H. Adams Manufacturing Company” or not. Berg testified that they were, and Adams not only denied this, but testified that no such being existed as the company named. Certainly, if Adams’ testimony is true, the goods were not vested in Berg by his purchase. Adams’ creditors were, entitled to subject them under § 1300 of the Code, but not the creditors of the company spoken of. The instruction to the jury to find for the defendant should not have been given.

Reversed and remanded.

Reference

Full Case Name: W. T. Adams v. S. H. Berg
Cited By: 2 cases
Status: Published
Syllabus: Trader. Property used or acquired, in business. Evidence. Instruction. § 1300, Code, 1880, applied. On a trial of the issue whether certain machinery was subject to a judgment against the “A. Manufacturing Company,” as haying been “ used or acquired” in the business of such company, within the meaning of j! 1300, Code of 1880, the affirmative evidence tended to show that the company manufactured and dealt in machinery of the particular kind; that such machinery was located in a house occupied by it, and was used in the conduct of its business. The negative evidence was to the effect that there was no such company as the “A. Manufacturing Company,” and no “ sign ” thereof; that A. had attempted to form such company, but failed; that the business was carried on by A. individually, and that the machinery in question was used by him in the prosecution of his business. The trial court held that tile property was subject to the judgment against the company by virtue of $ 1300, Code of 1880, and instructed the jury to find accordingly. Held, that if the evidence offered in the negative be true, the property could not have been subjected by a judgment in favor of creditors of the company, but only by a judgment against A. individually, and in favor of his individual creditors, and the court erred in its instruction to the jury.