Jones v. Kosing

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Jones v. Kosing

65 N.W. 732, 92 Wis. 55, 1896 Wisc. LEXIS 224

CourtWisconsin Supreme Court

DecidedJanuary 7, 1896

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 65 N.W. 732 (Jones v. Kosing) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Wisconsin Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Jones v. Kosing, 65 N.W. 732, 92 Wis. 55, 1896 Wisc. LEXIS 224 (Wis. 1896).

Pincite

Opinion

Maeshall, J.

The defendant, Adolph Keller, being indebted to the garnishee, Charles Kosing, in the sum of $1,592, gave as security a bill of sale of some merchandise, situated in his warehouse, for $1,101, and a chattel mortgage to secure the balance of $491 on the stock of goods in his .-.store, subject, however, to a mortgage thereon of $1,680, to "William Keller, another creditor. The latter thereafter sold •the store stock on his mortgage, for $2,175. Thereafter defendant, Adolph Keller, and the garnishee defendant, Kos-ing, made a settlement, in which it was agreed that Kosing should take $1,400 for his claim. He then sold his interest iln the warehouse property, and his entire claim against Adolph Keller, to William Keller, for $1,400, and took his mote therefor. After Kosing had parted with the possession [56]*56of and all interest in the property by the sale to "William' Seller, this suit was brought against Adolph Keller, and Kosing was summoned as garnishee. Plaintiffs claimed that the chattel mortgage and bill of sale given to the latter were-made to hinder and delay the creditors of the former. Issue-was joined in the garnishee action; was tried by a jury; a. verdict rendered in plaintiffs’ favor; and judgment entered thereon, from which this appeal was taken.

It follows from the foregoing that the garnishee, Kosmgr having sold his interest in the property, and parted with possession and control of it, and applied the proceeds in the-payment of Adolph Keller’s debt to him, before service of" the garnishee summons, he cannot be held as garnishee,, whether the mortgage and bill of sale were valid or invalid, or his possession was lawful or unlawful, as against the-other creditors of Adolph Keller. This was distinctly held in Spitz v. Tripp, 86 Wis. 25, which case rules this.

By the Oowrt— The judgment of the circuit court is reversed, and the cause is remanded for a new trial.

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

Maeshall, J.

The defendant, Adolph Keller, being indebted to the garnishee, Charles Kosing, in the sum of $1,592, gave as security a bill of sale of some merchandise, situated in his warehouse, for $1,101, and a chattel mortgage to secure the balance of $491 on the stock of goods in his .-.store, subject, however, to a mortgage thereon of $1,680, to "William Keller, another creditor. The latter thereafter sold •the store stock on his mortgage, for $2,175. Thereafter defendant, Adolph Keller, and the garnishee defendant, Kos-ing, made a settlement, in which it was agreed that Kosing should take $1,400 for his claim. He then sold his interest iln the warehouse property, and his entire claim against Adolph Keller, to William Keller, for $1,400, and took his mote therefor. After Kosing had parted with the possession [56]*56of and all interest in the property by the sale to "William' Seller, this suit was brought against Adolph Keller, and Kosing was summoned as garnishee. Plaintiffs claimed that the chattel mortgage and bill of sale given to the latter were-made to hinder and delay the creditors of the former. Issue-was joined in the garnishee action; was tried by a jury; a. verdict rendered in plaintiffs’ favor; and judgment entered thereon, from which this appeal was taken.

It follows from the foregoing that the garnishee, Kosmgr having sold his interest in the property, and parted with possession and control of it, and applied the proceeds in the-payment of Adolph Keller’s debt to him, before service of" the garnishee summons, he cannot be held as garnishee,, whether the mortgage and bill of sale were valid or invalid, or his possession was lawful or unlawful, as against the-other creditors of Adolph Keller. This was distinctly held in Spitz v. Tripp, 86 Wis. 25, which case rules this.

By the Oowrt— The judgment of the circuit court is reversed, and the cause is remanded for a new trial.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

65 N.W. 732, 92 Wis. 55, 1896 Wisc. LEXIS 224, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jones-v-kosing-wis-1896.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack