Pettibone v. Byrne

56 N.W. 236, 97 Mich. 85, 1893 Mich. LEXIS 849
Michigan Supreme Court·Decided October 2, 1893·Published·Cited by 9 cases

Opinion

McGrath, J.

Defendant, as sheriff, on April 25, 1891, attached certain personal property of the Watersmeet Lumber Company, and plaintiff replevied the property. The only question in the case is whether, as against creditors of the attachment debtor, the arrangements under which plaintiff held the property were valid. The instrument under which plaintiff claims the property, omitting the description of the property, reads as follows:

“ This indenture, made this 13th day of April, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and ninety-one, between the Watersmeet Lumber Company, a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Michigan, doing business at Watersmeet, in the county of Gogebic and State of Michigan, party of the first part, and F. W. Pettibone, of the same place, as trustee for certain creditors hereinafter referred to, party of the second part, witnesseth, that—
Whereas, the said Watersmeet Lumber Company is indebted unto the said creditors, respectively, in divers amounts, aggregating approximately the sum of one hundred and sixty thousand dollars, but certain of which debts cannot be definitely stated, and are possibly large enough to increase said indebtedness a few thousand dollars; and—
Whereas, the said Watersmeet Lumber Company has this day executed to the said F. W. Pettibone, as trustee, its bond in the sum one hundred and seventy-five thousand (175,000) dollars, conditioned for the payment of all said debts on or before two years from the date hereof, with interest as is in said bond provided, all of which said debts are to be equally secured hereby, saving and excepting the debt to Julius Ruprecht, in said bond mentioned, for the sum of approximately six hundred (600) dollars, which is a trust fund, and which is hereby especially declared to be preferred [87] and first paid out of the proceeds of the property herein described applicable to the payment of the said debts; and—
“Whereas, the said party of the first part has, by resolution of its directors, decided to secure the said indebtedness covered by said bond in manner as is in said bond provided, and by execution of this instrument.
. “ Now, the said party of the first part, in consideration of the premises, and of the sum of one (1.00) dollar, to it in hand paid by the said party of the second part, the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, has granted, bargained, sold, remised, released, enfeoffed, and confirmed, and by "these presents does grant, bargain,'sell, remise, release, enfeoff, and confirm, unto the said party of the second part, as such trustee as aforesaid, and to his successors in said trust and assigns, all those certain pieces or parcels of land situate and being in the counties of Gogebic and Ontonagon, in the State of Michigan, and all the goods, chattels, and personal property hereinafter mentioned, and described as follows, to wit:
[Here follow descriptions.]

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

Pettibone v. Byrne, 56 N.W. 236, 97 Mich. 85, 1893 Mich. LEXIS 849 (Mich. 1893).

56 N.W. 236 (Pettibone v. Byrne) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Charles Maloney & Co. v. Gonhue
116 N.W. 436 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1908)
McBryan v. Trowbridge
84 N.W. 1084 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1901)
Dearing v. . McKinnon Dash Hardware Co.
58 N.E. 773 (New York Court of Appeals, 1900)
Belding-Hall Manufacturing Co. v. Smith
83 N.W. 1001 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1900)
Ontario Bank v. Hurst
103 F. 231 (Sixth Circuit, 1900)
Conely v. Collins
44 L.R.A. 844 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1899)
Dearing v. Dash
33 A.D. 31 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1898)
Hill v. Mallory
70 N.W. 1016 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1897)