Kaufman v. Coburn

46 N.W. 1010, 30 Neb. 672, 1890 Neb. LEXIS 150
CourtNebraska Supreme Court
DecidedNovember 5, 1890
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 46 N.W. 1010 (Kaufman v. Coburn) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Nebraska Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Kaufman v. Coburn, 46 N.W. 1010, 30 Neb. 672, 1890 Neb. LEXIS 150 (Neb. 1890).

Opinion

Maxwell, J.

This is an action of replevin brought in the district court of Douglas county, aud as the petition and answer purport to set out the facts as claimed by each party, they are hereby given. The amended petition is as follows:

The plaintiffs complain of the defendant and allege for cause of action that they are the absolute and unqualified owners of the goods, wares, and merchandise described as follows, to-wit: All the goods, chattels, wares, and merchandise, consisting of the stock of tobacco, pipes, cigar-holders, cigars, fancy articles, cigarettes, including all the stock of goods, chattels, wares, and merchandise contained in the building and place of business No. 207 South Fifteenth street, Omaha, Nebraska, including all the fixtures, show cases, counters, and shelving, and including all the articles, goods, and chattels contained in the basement and storei’oom of said building, No. 207 South Fifteenth street. All of the goods, chattels, wares, and merchandise, consisting of tobacco, pipes, canes, cigars, cigar-holders, fancy articles, cigarettes; also all, fixtures, including counters, shelving, show cases, and including all articles, goods, and chattels contained in the storeroom and basement in the building, No. 216 South Thirteenth street, Omaha, Nebraska. All of the stock of goods, wares, and merchandise, consisting of tobacco, pipes, fancy articles, cigars, cigar-holders, cigarettes, and cigarette-holders; also the fixtures, including counters, shelving, show cases, including all the goods, chattels, wares, and merchandise contained in the storeroom of No. 1009 Farnam street, Omaha, Nebraska; all the said goods above described being in the-city of Omaha, Douglas county, Nebraska.

[675]*675“Second — Plaintiffs, allege that said goods, wares, and merchandise, above described, are of the value of $10,000.

“ Third — That the defendant wrongfully and unlawfully detains said goods, wares, and merchandise from the possession of plaintiffs, and has wrongfully detained the same for-days, to the plaintiffs’ damage in the sum of $10,000.”

Afterwards the Bank of Commerce was admitted as a defendant with Coburn, and they filed a joint answer as follows:

“Now come said defendants and for answer to plaintiff’s petition filed herein deny each and every allegation therein contained.

Second — That on or about the 20th day of February, 1888, David Kaufman and Isaac Kaufman, copartners in trade and doing business in the city of Omaha, Nebraska, under the firm name and style of Kaufman Brothers, were indebted to the said Bank of Commerce in the sum of $6,600 in two causes of action arising upon two certain promissory notes, one for the sum of $3,000 and interest thereon, and the other for $4,000 and interest, on which there was a credit of $100, and on said day the said Bank of Commerce commenced two actions by attachment against the said Kaufman Brothers in the district court in and for Douglas county, and caused an order of attachment to be issued in each of said cases, one for the sum of $3,000 and interest, and the other for $3,600 and interest, and delivered the same to the defendant Wm. Coburn, who was at that, time, and all the time hereinafter mentioned has been and now is the sheriff of said Douglas county, Nebraska; that under and by virtue of said orders and in pursuance of the command thereof the said defendant, Wm. Coburn, sheriff, levied upon the goods, wares, and merchandise, and took the same into his custody; that said goods and chattels were at the time of said levy the goods and chattels of said Kaufman Brothers and were liable to be lev[676]*676ied upon for the satisfaction of said debts and taken under said orders of attachment for the satisfaction of the same.

“Third — That on the lltli day of February, 1888, one Darwin H. Hull commenced an action by attachment against said Kaufman Brothers in the county court of.said Douglas county, and caused an order of attachment for the sum of $367.50 to be issued in said cause and delivered to the defendant William Coburn, sheriff; that under and by virtue of said order, and in pursuance of the command thereof, said defendant Win. Coburn, sheriff, levied upon the goods above described, subject to the levy of the attachment first above described, and took the same into his custody; that said goods were at the time of said levy the goods and chattels of the said Kaufman Brothers, David Kaufman and Isaac Kaufman, and were liable to be levied upon for the satisfaction of. said last named debt, and taken under said order of attachment for the satisfaction of the same; that afterwards and on the 19th ■ day of March, 1888, a judgment was rendered in, said county court in said case in favor of the plaintiff and against said Kaufman Brothers for the sum of $367.50 and costs in the sum of $6.10. Since the issuing of said' attachments aforesaid, and, to-wit, on or about the 8th day of January, 1889, there has been paid on the note for $4,000 to the Bank of Commerce, above referred to, the sum of $1,000.”

The above amended answer was filed at the close of the trial The cause having been tried on a general denial, the court instructed the jury as follows:

“This is an action brought by the plaintiffs to recover from the defendant Coburn, as sheriff of this county, the possession of certain goods, wares, and merchandise, to which the plaintiffs claim they were entitled, and which had been taken by the sheriff under orders of attachment sued out of this court in actions commenced by creditors of Kaufman Bros, against them. The plaintiffs base their right of recovery herein upon the in .¡¡-aments widrh nave [677]*677been introduced in evidence, purporting to be a bill of sale of the property in controversy, to them. You are instructed :

“I. That the written instruments referred to, which were introduced in evidence by the plaintiffs as evidence of their title to the property in controversy, was, in effect, as shown by the testimony, an assignment for the benefit of creditors, and as such is void under our statute, and conveyed no title to the plaintiffs in this action as against other creditors. It is your duty, therefore, to return a verdict for the defendants, and I hand you a verdict, which you will sign by your foreman and return the same into court.”

The jury returned a verdict as follows:

“We, the jury duly impaneled and sworn to try the issue joined between the said parties, do find for the said defendants, and do find that defendants had a special interest in and were entitled to the possession of the property at the time of the commencement of this suit, and we find the interest of the Bank of Commerce to be $5,055, and of Wm. Coburn,-sheriff, $909.S3; total, $5,964.83.”'

A motion for a new trial was thereupon filed, one of the grounds-of which was that the damages were expessive; the bank thereupon remitted from the verdict the sum of $£05, whereupon the motion for a new trial was overruled and judgment entered on the verdict.

The testimony tends to show that prior to the 8th day of February, 1888, David Kaufman and Isaac Kaufman were engaged in business in the city of Omaha under the name of “Kaufman Bros.” It also appears that they were largely indebted, and that Edgar P. Davis, Samuel Rees, and Levi Kaufman had each become security for Kaufman Bros, in a very large amount. These parties, to save themselves from loss, claimed to have purchased the stock of goods and other property of Kaufman Bros., who thereupon executed the following instruments:

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

Related

Smith v. Choy Yin
30 Haw. 948 (Hawaii Supreme Court, 1929)
Davis v. National Bank of Commerce
63 N.W. 852 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1895)
Kaufman v. U. S. National Bank
48 N.W. 738 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1891)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
46 N.W. 1010, 30 Neb. 672, 1890 Neb. LEXIS 150, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kaufman-v-coburn-neb-1890.