Guittard v. Robinson
Guittard v. Robinson
Opinion of the Court
On the 6th day of February, 1889, Vm, F. Eobinson, then being engaged in the mercantile business at Barnston, in Gage county, and being indebted to various persons -and firms for goods, and being unable to pay the same, promptly executed the following instrument:
“Witness my hand this 6th day of February, A. D. 1889.
W. F. Robinson.
“In presence of
“R. W. Sabin.”
This was duly acknowledged and the persons named in the instrument, in name at least, took possession. The testimony shows that the design of all the parties to the contract was to include all the creditors of Wm. F. Robinson, and the attorneys for the creditors, so far as they are named in the instrument and were known, accepted the conditions named. Mr. Robinson’s books, however, do not seem to have been kept fully posted and it was soon afterwards •discovered that debts due the plaintiffs Raymond Bros, and King Bros, had been omitted.' The person placed by the creditors in the store testifies that W. F. Robinson was left in possession of the store and that he (Robinson) kept no account of the sales made from day to day, and hence that he could not do so.
The plaintiffs filed their petition setting up the above and other facts and asking for a receiver and other relief,
On the trial of the cause the court rendered a decree as follows: “And now, on this 25th day of July, A. D. 1889, this cause came on for hearing on the petition of plaintiffs, the answer and cross-petition of the defendants, and the replies to said answers, and on consideration whereof the court finds generally for the plaintiffs; that the trustees J. E. Robinson and Charles Cruse, in the trust contract referred to in the petition, have a vested interest in the execution of the said trust upon a good consideration; that George R. Scott, the receiver heretofore appointed in this ease, should execute said trust contract in the stead of said trustees, and that if there are any assets remaining after cárrying out the conditions of said trust deed, that he should apply the same in payment of the plaintiffs’ judgment, and if anything then remain he apply the same in satisfaction of the garnishments against him of the defendants King Bros, and Raymond Bros. & Co.; and the court further finds that the said receiver should pay first out of the assets in his hands the costs of this action; to all of which findings the defendants Raymond Bros. & Co. and King Bros, except.
“ It is therefore ordered and decreed by the court that George R. Scott, the receiver heretofore appointed in this case, execute and carry out the trust contract entered into between the defendants W. E. Robinson, J. E. Robinson, and Charles Cruse, mentioned in plaintiffs’ petition, and that if there are any assets remaining in his hands after carrying out the provisions of said trust contract, that he apply the same in payment of plaintiffs’ judgment, and that if anything then remain that he apply such balance in satisfaction of the garnishments to King Bros, and Raymond Bros. & Co., against him. That the receiver pay first out of the assets in his hand the costs of this action, taxed at $-.”
The only question presented is as to the distribution of
The sale is clearly shown to have been for the benefit of all creditors and, so far as appears, no debt is entitled to preference over another. An equal distribution will therefore be made as to all.
The proceeds of the sale will therefore be applied iu equal proportions upon all the debts of said W. F. Robinson, including those in favor of the plaintiffs Raymond Bros. & Co. and King Bros., and as thus modified the judgment is affirmed.
Judgment accoedingly.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Xavier Guittard v. W. F. Robinson, impleaded with King Bros
- Status
- Published