Bush v. Harrison Granite Co.
Bush v. Harrison Granite Co.
Opinion of the Court
The Producers’ Granite Company was a Yermont corporation. In a chancery proceeding brought to the September Term, 1895, in Washington County, the plaintiff was on the 4th day of November, 1895, duly appointed its receiver. November 8, 1895, the receiver qualified and took possession of its property. By the order of appointment the receiver was authorized to employ labor and furnish material for the completion of unfinished work, and for the fulfillment of subsisting contracts. This suit was brought against the Harrison Granite
Prior to November 5, 1895, tbe firm of J. E. Harrison & Sons of Michigan was a dealer in Barre granite and bad done business with tbe Producers’ Granite Company of which it was one of tbe principal stockholders. Tbe other principal stockholder was tbe Empire Granite Company, a Vermont corporation. On said 5th day of November, 1895, tbe Harrison Granite Company was incorporated under tbe laws of tbe State of Michigan, and two days thereafter was organized, became tbe owner of all tbe property of said firm of Harrison & Sons, and succeeded to its business. Tbe referee finds: “that both tbe plaintiff and tbe defendant understood that tbe defendant was tbe owner of tbe property, accounts, contracts, and assets of J. E. Harrison & Sons, and that tbe plaintiff accepted and treated tbe defendant as such owner and transacted all business with and in tbe name of tbe defendant whether such business pertained to tbe accounts and contracts prior or subsequent to tbe receivership or not.”
Tbe Producers’ Granite Company bad done business with J. E. Harison & Sons under a contract which was in substance that tbe former should manufacture such monuments as tbe latter should order on tbe terms that tbe latter should furnish tbe stock, and pay tbe former tbe amount of tbe stone cutters wages, and 35 percent thereof in addition, and a price named for polishing. Tbe 35 percent was treated as profit, although expenses of management and some incidental costs were to come out of it. All work was to be paid for upon completion and delivery. Damages for defective work were to fall upon tbe Producers’ Granite Company. Loss from defective stone was to be borne by Harrison & Sons. Tbe Producers’ Granite Company bad tbe same contract with tbe Empire Granite Company before mentioned.
“Dear Sir: — Answering yours of the 26th we enclose draft to the order of Producers’ Granite Company, $2,800. Before using this money for pay roll or any other purpose, please see a letter of today from H. C. Smith or Watts, Bean & Smith, to John W. Gordon, at Barre. You will notice that it is our wish that this money be paid over to the Producers’ Granite Company only on an order from the court, in order to protect ourselves under the present tangled condition of affairs.”
Under their contract nothing was due from Harrison & Sons to the Producers ’ Company at the time this draft was sent; and later, when the receiver was appointed, and, as the referee finds, a charge was made against Harrison & Sons, or the defendant, of $5,100.19 for unfinished and undelivered pieces of work, a sum not due, the balance then and thus shown against Harrison & Sons, or the defendant, was only $866.48. At the time the draft for $2,800 was sent, the chancery proceeding
If these findings involve conclusions of law the conclusions •stand, for they are conclusions of law which the court itself -draws from all the facts found by the referee.
The defendant in several letters to the receiver insisted that the latter get an order from the court of chancery authorizing him to issue a certificate showing the nature of the defendant’s claim for the $2,800. In March* 1896, the receiver issued a certificate or receipt which faced both ways and was misleading. The plaintiff in his brief characterizes this paper as fraudulent •on its face, and the defendant’s brief speaks of its false pre
The contracts of the Producers’ Company with Harrison & Sons, incomplete in respect to finishing or delivery when the receiver was appointed, were completed by the receiver, and new jobs were done by the receiver for the Harrison Granite Company under the same contract terms as had subsisted between the Producers’ Company and Harrison & Sons. The old contracts were treated by the receiver as made with the Harrison Granite Company. The result of the dealings of the receiver with the Harrison Granite Company was that the receiver had charges against the Harrison Company, which were allowed by the referee, to the amount of $16,818.56, and that the credits to the Harrison Company admitted by the receiver on hearing and the additional credit of $2,800, which should have been allowed, more than equalled the debit side of the receiver’s account with the defendant. /
The defendant does not claim that his plea in offset is so drawn as to amount to a declaration in offset under which the defendant can recover any balance due him. Therefore we do not consider certain other claims of the defendant against the receiver. Some items of claimed offset, against the Producers’ Company were presented to the court of chancery in the receivership proceedings in pursuance of an order of court that the creditors of the Producers’ Company should file their claims against it by a day named. In the proceedings last referred to no final action has been taken. However, the claim for the item of $2,800, which has been considered, was not presented to the court of chancery in such proceedings, but appears always to have been regarded by the defendant as a charge against the receiver on account of its dealings with him which have been herein reviewed.
•Judgment reversed and judgment for the defendant to recover its costs. - °
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.