Lucey v. Vilhauer

264 N.W. 203, 64 S.D. 54, 1935 S.D. LEXIS 94
CourtSouth Dakota Supreme Court
DecidedDecember 21, 1935
DocketFile No. 7749.
StatusPublished
Cited by15 cases

This text of 264 N.W. 203 (Lucey v. Vilhauer) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering South Dakota Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Lucey v. Vilhauer, 264 N.W. 203, 64 S.D. 54, 1935 S.D. LEXIS 94 (S.D. 1935).

Opinions

ROBERT'S, J.

This action was brought by plaintiff against Christ Vilhauer and Robert W.ildennuth alleging that defendants, copartners in the retail hardware business at Tripp, S. D., authorized plaintiff to take possession of their stock of merchandise, to sell the same, and apply the proceeds to the payment of claims of creditors of the partnership; that plaintiff thereupon took possession, sold the property, and deposited the proceeds in a bank selected by the parties; that prior to the commencement of this action all the creditors of the partnership assigned their claims to the plaintiff; and that notwithstanding the agreement defendant Vilhauer will not permit the disbursement of such proceeds. The prayer in the complaint is for an accounting; that the proceeds be adjudged to belong to plaintiff as assignee of creditors; that defendant Vilhauer be directed to execute such instruments as may be necessary to effect the disbursement of the proceeds to plain *56 tiff; and that judgment be entered against the defendants for the deficiency.

After the overruling of his 'demurrer to the complaint, defendant Vilhauer filed an answer denying that he -was ever a partner with Robert Wildermuth in the retail hardware business, alleging fraud and misrepresentation inducing the execution of the agreement set forth in the complaint and alleging that an instrument executed and filed in the office of the register of deeds purporting to transfer to him a one-half intex-est in the hardware stock including the good will of the business was intended as a chattel mortgage.

Findings and conclusions were in favor of plaintiff, and from judgment axid order denying motion for xiew trial defendant Vilhauer has appealed.

Respondent has moved in this court to dismiss the appeal on the ground that notice of appeal was not served upon defendant Wildermuth. Notice of appeal must be served on a party whose interest in the subject-matter of the appeal is adverse to or will be affected by the reversal or modification of the judgment ox-order from which the appeal has 'been taken if he has appeared in the action in the trial court. Section 3:146, Rev. Code 1919; Sutton v. Consol. Apex Min. Co., 12 S. D. 576, 82 N. W. 188; Crouch v. Dak., W. & M. R. R. Co., 22 S. D. 263, 117 N. W. 145; Fergen v. Lonie, 50 S. D. 328, 210 N. W. 102. Judgment 'having been entered against defendant Wildermuth upon default in appearance, he was not entitled to be served with notice of appeal. The motion to dismiss the appeal is denied.

• The evidence discloses that Paul Wildermuth and his two sons, Otto and Richard, were the proprietors of this hardware store under the firm name of Wildermuth Hardware Company. They became financially involved, and when an execution upon a judgment for approximately $3,000 against the firm was issued in March, 1924, defendant Vilhauer paid the amount of the judgment in consideration of the traxisfer of a one-half intex-est hi the business to his son-in-law, Robert Wildermuth. The transfer was made, and Robert axid his father, Paul Wildermuth, became the sole members of the firm and continued the business under the same firm name. Vilhauer having advanced at different times additional amounts to *57 pay obligations of this firm conferred, in June, 1927, with Henry Klatt, president of the Dakota State Bank of Tripp, with reference to such payments. It is the testimony of Vilhauer that on this occasion he requested Mr. Klatt to prepare a chattel mortgage upon the one-half interest of Paul Wildermuth in the hardware business. An instrument was prepared which purports to transfer to Vilhauer an undivided one-half interest in and to the stock of merchandise of the hardware firm including the good will of the business. This was signed by Paul Wildermuth and filed in the office of the register of deeds. Vilhauer continued to finance this business enterprise and has paid obligations of the firm amounting to approximately $27,000.

It further appears from the evidence that in October, 1930, E. W. Klempnauer, a representative of one of the creditors of the hardware firm, conferred with Vilhauer regarding the payment of a claim. Defendant Vilhauer complained to Klempnauer that his son-in-law did not give proper attention to the business and that he was not willing to make further advances. In response to a telephone call from Klempnauer, plaintiff went to Tripp and there conferred with defendants. Klempnauer testified: “Mr. Ducey and I explained the terms of the contract to Mr. Vilhauer. We told Mr. Vilhauer there would be a deficiency and we would have to incorporate into this contract that he would be liable for the deficiency. We called in a young man who was working in the bank and he proceeded to draw this contract at the dictation of Mr. Ducey. I 'had something to do with some of the dictation in part.” The contract thus prepared and set fort in the complaint was signed by defendants. It reads as follows :

“By this agreement 'Christ Vilhauer and Robert Wildermuth as individuals state that they are desirous of dissolving the Co-partnership trading under the style of the Wildermuth Hardware Company of Tripp, South Dakota.

“By this agreement we appoint P. A. Ducey manager of the Interstate Association of Credit Men and we convey to him full power of attorney to proceed at once with the liquidation of the copartnership to sell and dispose of all of the assets by public or private sale in bulk or in parcels all the merchandise consisting chiefly of shelf hardware, stoves, and such other merchandise as is now *58 contained in the building located on Lot nine and Lot ten (9 & 10) in Block eight (8) City of Tripp, 'South Dakota, together with all fixtures and equipment contained in the same building.

“All of the proceeds received from said sale of merchandise and fixtures shall be deposited -daily in the Dakota State Bank, Tripp, -South Dakota and a full report made as to the -conduct -of sales daily. Said monies cannot be withdrawn from -bank only upon the signatures of P. A.. Lucey and Christ Vilhauer.

“By this agreement we the copartners request that the Interstate Association of Credit Men or P. A. Lucey write to each and every o-ne of the creditors as listed in Exhibit A attached hereto requesting sai-d creditors to file with the Interstate Association of Credit Men or P. A. Lucey a full and complete statement verified as to any indebtedness owing to them by the Wfildermuth Hardware and after said claims are filed they shall be subject to approval and acknowledged by the Wildermuth Hardware Company as to their correctness.

“It is further agreed that the proceeds of this sale after deducting the -costs of said sale shall be divided prorata 'between the creditors whose claims are duly filed and allowed.

“It is further agreed that we the copartners will make immediate arrangements for the payment of any and all deficiencies that may be owing after the proceeds of the sale have been disbursed.

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

Related

Enchanted World Doll Museum v. CorTrust Bank, N.A.
2009 SD 111 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 2009)
In Re Reese Trust
2009 SD 111 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 2009)
Mahan v. Avera St. Luke's
2001 SD 9 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 2001)
Drs., Residents, and Orth. Surg. Spec. v. Avera St. Luke
2001 SD 9 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 2001)
Dacy v. Gors
471 N.W.2d 576 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1991)
Lyndoe v. Am. Standard Ins. Co. of Wisconsin
245 N.W.2d 273 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1976)
Morrell Livestock Co. v. Stockman's Commission Co.
86 N.W.2d 533 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1957)
Commercial Service Corp. v. L. Paulle-Midway Fixture & Show Case Co.
66 N.W.2d 523 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1954)
Brown County v. Zerr
295 N.W. 289 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1940)
Pratt v. Shell Petroleum Corporation
100 F.2d 833 (Tenth Circuit, 1938)
Union Bond & Mortgage Co. v. Brown
269 N.W. 472 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1936)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
264 N.W. 203, 64 S.D. 54, 1935 S.D. LEXIS 94, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lucey-v-vilhauer-sd-1935.