Ellis v. Martin
Ellis v. Martin
Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
John N. Plank confessed a judgment to secure a debt due his wife, and the next day an execution was issued on it and a levy made on his personal property. On the day following he made an assignment of all his property to William Martin for the benefit of his creditors. It was then agreed that the property should be sold by the assignee instead of by the sheriff, but the lien of the levy was to remain, and the proceeds of the sale were to be paid to the trustee of Mrs. Plank in satisfaction of her judgment. The sheriff upon being relieved of responsibility withdrew from the custody of the property and it was left in the nominal possession of the assignee, but in the actual possession of the assignor and his wife and under their exclusive control until it was sold at public sale about eleven
The plaintiff waived her right to have the property sold by the sheriff and with her consent it passed to the assignee that it might be sold in the due course of the administration of the assigned estate. This of necessity involved delay, which was further increased by her agreement for the use of the live stock and implements in carrying on the farming operations until the spring following. In the meantime it was necessary that the stock should be fed. It was being held for a better market and used to provide her family with a home and support. That this was the understanding is apparent. The plaintiff testified : “ I said, ‘ What are we to do ? ’ He (the defendant) said, ‘ We should farm on as we have been.’ I said, ‘ We can’t go to the store ; people won’t trust me now.’ He replied, ‘ I will give you a book on the store.’ We were uneasy to know how to get along.” Under this arrangement the oats and corn were fed to the horses and cows. The wheat was harvested and used in part for seeding, and the balance went in some way to the support of the family. When the sale was made the assignee found no grain on the place, and he paid store bills to the amount of several hundred dollars.
The oats and corn were sufficiently accounted for by the fact that they were fed to the stock which was being held with her consent and for her benefit. The levy was on a growing crop
The fourth and fifth assignments of error are sustained and the judgment is reversed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.