Nalty v. Cohn

78 So. 3, 117 Miss. 190
CourtMississippi Supreme Court
DecidedMarch 15, 1918
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 78 So. 3 (Nalty v. Cohn) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Mississippi Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Nalty v. Cohn, 78 So. 3, 117 Miss. 190 (Mich. 1918).

Opinion

SteveNS, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

Appellee, Louis Cohn, assignee of the Commercial Bank & Trust Company, filed a petition in the chancery court of Lincoln county to require J. B. Nalty, appellant, to perform a certain agreement outlined in the petition. The cause of action arises out of the following state of facts: At the time the Commercial Bank & Trust Company went into the hands of a receiver, the East Union Lumber & Manufacturing Company, a corporation engaged in the manufacture and sale of lumber, was indebted to the insolvent bank in a sum approximately twenty-nine thousand dollars evidenced by two notes. To secure these notes the lumber company had assigned and deposited with the bank a list of its accounts against various parties to whom ship- • ments of lumber Avere consigned. When the receivers took charge of the bank it was ascertained that the lumber company owed the bank a large balance, that many of the accounts pledged to the bank had been collected direct by officers of the lumber company, and that the state of the security was uncertain. Thereupon the receivers negotiated with the officers of the lumber company for an adjustment of the indebtedness and [198]*198for security to replace the accounts which the lumber company had collected direct from its customers. The negotiations led to an agreement, and this agreement was .outlined in a joint petition filed by the East Union Lumber & Manufacturing Company and the receivers of' the bank, addressed to the chancery court having jurisdiction' of the receivership proceedings, and upon this joint petition a decree was rendered by the chancellor, ratifying and approving the agreement. The petition outlining the agreement between the lumber company and the assignees directed attention, to the past-due indebtedness owing by the lumber company, and to the fact that certain accounts of the lumber company against many persons for lumber shipped had been transferred as security, and attached a list of these accounts as a part of the petition, and stated that ■some of the accounts had been collected direct by the lumber company, that some had been included in the list by error, and that some of the accounts were in controversy. A list of the accounts which the company had collected in part, as well as those accounts which had been paid and those in controversy, were filed as Exhibit No. 2 to the petition. .It was then stated and represented that the lumber company “has assigned and transferred and delivered to said assignees other accounts, a list of which showing the name of debtors and amounts is herewith filed, marked ‘Exhibit No. 3;’ and it is also agreed to deliver to the assignees a note, indorsed by J. B. Nalty, secured - by a valid mortgage on certain lands in Louisiana to the amount of three thousand nine hundred and one dollars and seventy-séven cents, and said note to be made payable in ninety days from date and to draw interest.” The petition further represented that the lumber company “has executed a certain other bill of sale to the assignees transferring them certain other lumber, a copy of which is herewith filed.” It was averred that the assignee had attempted to collect the lumber accounts pledged with [199]*199the bank, but that in many instances “credits and corrections are claimed and adjustments are demanded and the assignees themselves, being unable to make •such adjustments, not being informed as to merits of the several cases, respectfully show that said East Union & Manufacturing Company is in better position than they are to do so. The custom, as the assignees are informed, in similar eases, while the b'ank was a going concern Avas to allow the East Union Lumber & Manufacturing Company to make these collections and adjustments, and the money was turned into the bank and applied on the indebtedness contracted against said shipments, other accounts being transferred to meet deficiencies.” It was then represented in detail that these accounts could be best bandied direct by the lumber company “through the medium of the company’s collecting department, ’ ’ and the prayer of the petition in that regard was that one Louis Nalty, an officer of the company, should be designated as agent and trustee to collect these accounts through the corporation upon his executing a good and sufficient bond equal to the value of the securities. An agreement was outlined also whereby any lumber covered by the bill of sale to the bank might be released, provided Louis Nalty be responsible for the value thereof and the lumber company should pay the value to said trustee Louis Nalty. It is then expressly represented that in the opinion of the assignees the lumber company has “sufficient property and assets to pay all of its debts, and that in its usual course of business it will be enabled to liquidate the indebtedness herein mentioned within a short time, ’ ’ and, further, that the result of the agreement therein set forth “will result in turning into money said accounts and securities without unnecessary delay and to the mutual advantage of all parties concerned.” The court Avas asked to ratify and confirm this agreement, and thereupon the chancellor entered the following decree:

[200]*200“This cause coming on to be heard on the petition of the assignees and the East Union Lumber & Manufacturing Company, setting forth an agreement entered into between them, to the effect that-the said East Union Lumber & Manufacturing Company, being indebted to the Commercial Bank & Trust Company, and having transferred and assigned certain accounts to said bank and to said assignees, and having transferred and set aside by bill of sale certain lumber to secure indebtedness mentioned and set forth at length in said petition; that said accounts were to be turned over to Louis Nalty and collected for the assignees through the organization and collecting department of the East Union Lumber & Manufacturing Company, and the proceeds thereof paid over to the assignees; that said lumber transferred was to be kept intact, and so much thereof as might be necessary for the use of the East Union Lumber & Manufacturing Company was to be released to said company upon payment of the value agreed upon, said payment to be promptly turned over to said assignees; that said Louis Nalty was to give bond in the penalty of the value of the property turned over to -him to faithfully carry out the agreement and account for all moneys coming into his hands, and pay the same over to the assignees, said bond with the United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company as surety in the sum of thirty thousand dollars, being hereby approved; that all of said lumber was to be sold within a reasonable- time, said petition being referred to for the details, and the court having heard the same and being of the opinion that said agreement is lawful, and the carrying out thereof will be for the best interest of the estate and all parties concerned — it is therefore ordered, adjudged, and decreed that said agreement be and the same is hereby allowed, ratified, and confirmed, all parties thereto to be accountable to the court for its faithful performance. The premium on the bond to be paid equally [201]*201by said East Union Lumber & Manufacturing Company and assignees.
“Ordered, adjudged, and decreed tbis January 26, 1914.”

Following this petition and decree, comes the present petition, representing briefly and in general terms that John B. Nalty, the president of the company, “acting for himself and the East Union Lumber &

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

Related

Albert J. Santoro v. PJT Holdings, LLC, Etc.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2025
Olin Mathieson Chemical Corp. v. Planters Corp.
114 S.E.2d 321 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1960)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
78 So. 3, 117 Miss. 190, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nalty-v-cohn-miss-1918.