Ford v. Henderson

178 P. 381, 91 Or. 701, 1919 Ore. LEXIS 79
CourtOregon Supreme Court
DecidedFebruary 11, 1919
StatusPublished

This text of 178 P. 381 (Ford v. Henderson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Oregon Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Ford v. Henderson, 178 P. 381, 91 Or. 701, 1919 Ore. LEXIS 79 (Or. 1919).

Opinions

HARRIS, J.

J. D. Tompkins used or disposed of 62 of the 552 sacks of oats delivered to him by the sheriff and hence on November 18, 1916, Tompkins had only 490 sacks; but the evidence shows conclusively that on November 18, 1916, J. D. Tompkins returned the 490 sacks of oats to Henderson and paid the latter $62 for the 62 sacks which had been used. The record does not inform us as to the amount for which Ford was suing in the Justice’s Court, but we may of course assume that the sum sued for did not exceed $250: Section 951, L. O. L. The value of the oats was fixed in the verdict returned by the jury in the action of replevin and it may therefore be assumed that the 490 sacks returned to Henderson and the $62 cash paid to him were mo re. than enough to satisfy any judgment that might be rendered in the action in the Justice’s Court. It is not necessary to determine whether J. D. Tompkins could have compelled Henderson to receive the 490 sacks and $62 for [705]*705the missing 62 sacks, for the record shows that J. D. Tompkins paid $62 and redelivered 490 sacks and Henderson received the money and oats in absolute good faith. In passing it is proper to say, too, that Henderson was not elected trustee until the creditors and referee, who were present at the first meeting of creditors held on November 28, 1916, were informed of the fact that Henderson, acting as constable, had held the oats in his possession for ten days, and the referee suggested that “it would be a fine thing for” Henderson to act because it would save expense in moving the oats.

It will be recalled that the constable levied on the crop of oats on September 7,1916, and that eight days afterwards, on September 15th, F.B. Tompkins was adjudged a bankrupt. The Bankruptcy Act (Act July 1, 1898, Chap. 451, 30 Stat. 544) provides that all attachments or other liens obtained through legal proceedings at any time within four months prior to the filing of a petition in bankruptcy shall be deemed null and void in case the insolvent person is adjudged a bankrupt, and the property affected by the attachment is discharged and released from the same. • It therefore follows that the adjudication in bankruptcy plus the appointment of the trustee operated to annul, as against the trustee, whatever interest Ford may have acquired under the writ of attachment and to vest Henderson as trustee with the title of F. B. Tompkins as of the date the latter was adjudged a bankrupt: Bankruptcy Act of 1898, § 67f (Comp. Stats., § 9651); 3 R. C. L. 291; 1 Loveland on Bankruptcy, §§ 368, 370.

The decree appealed from is affirmed. Affirmed.

McBride, C. J., and Beeson and Bean, JJ., concur.

[706]*706Rehearing denied April 1, 1919.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Lehman, Stern & Co. v. S. Gumbel & Co.
236 U.S. 448 (Supreme Court, 1915)
Gabriel v. Tonner
70 P. 1021 (California Supreme Court, 1902)
Stickney & Babcock Coal Co. v. Goodwin
49 A. 1039 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1901)
McKenney v. Cheney
45 S.E. 433 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1903)
Mohr & Sons v. Mattox
48 S.E. 410 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1904)
Wallace v. Camp
49 A. 942 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1901)
Mencke v. Rosenberg
51 A. 767 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1902)
Brown v. Case
61 N.E. 279 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1901)
Longley v. McCann
119 S.W. 268 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1909)
Hall v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad
128 N.W. 645 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1910)
Gardiner v. Ross
104 N.W. 220 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1905)
Goodnough Mercantile Co. v. Galloway
84 P. 1049 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1906)
Cavanaugh v. Fenley
103 N.W. 711 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1905)
Farrell v. W. B. Lockett & Co.
115 Tenn. 494 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1905)
In re Lesser
100 F. 433 (S.D. New York, 1900)
In re Kaupisch Creamery Co.
107 F. 93 (D. Oregon, 1901)
In re McCartney
109 F. 621 (E.D. Wisconsin, 1901)
In re Beals
116 F. 530 (D. Indiana, 1902)
In re De Lue
91 F. 510 (D. Massachusetts, 1899)
In re Easley
93 F. 419 (W.D. Virginia, 1898)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
178 P. 381, 91 Or. 701, 1919 Ore. LEXIS 79, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ford-v-henderson-or-1919.