TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

City National Bank v. Goshen Woolen Mills Co.

City National Bank v. Goshen Woolen Mills Company

City Nat'l Bank v. Goshen Woolen Mills Co., 71 N.E. 652 (Ind. 1904)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Indiana Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
June 30, 1904
Docket
No. 18,964
Citations
71 N.E. 652163 Ind. 2141904 Ind. LEXIS 136
Disposition
Affirmed.
Headnotes
Corporations.— Insolvency. — Preferences.— An insolvent manufacturing corporation may lawfully prefer bona fide claims due to creditors who are directors and officers of such corporation, when it requires the vote of one or more of such to pass the resolution authorizing such preference. Nappanee Canning Co. v. Beid, Murdoch & Co., 159 Ind. 614, affirmed. Hadley, J., dissents.
Summary
From St. Joseph Circuit Court; Lucius Hubbard, Judge. Action by the City National Bank of Goshen against the Goshen "Woolen Mills Company and others. From a decree in favor of plaintiff against said company and Edmund R. and James L. Kerstetter, and refusing to cancel an alleged fraudulent trust deed preferring certain other creditors, the plaintiff appeals. Transferred from the Appellate Court under subdivision 1, §1337j Burns 1901, with a recommendation that the case of Nappanee Canning Co. v. Reid, Murdoch $ Co., 159 Ind. 614, be overruled.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Per Curiam.

This action was brought by the appellant the City National Bank to recover a debt alleged to be due to the bank from the appellees, the Goshen Woolen Mills Company, Edmund R. Kerstetter, and James L. Kerstetter. The appellant also sought to cancel and set aside as *215 fraudulent a deed executed by tbe Goshen Woolen Mills Company to one Harry L. Arnold, as trustee, to secure the payment of certain bona fide debts owing by the said company, to set aside certain judgments confessed' by the said company in favor of other bona fide creditors, and it asked for the appointment of a receiver to take possession of the property of the said company, etc. A special finding of facts was made by the court at the request of the parties, and conclusions of law were stated thereon. The appellant excepted to the second conclusion of law. Judgment was rendered in favor of the bank and against the Goshen Woolen Mills Company, Edmund E. Kerstetter, and James L. Kerstetter for $5,325.24. Judgment was rendered in favor of the other defendants and appellees and against the bank. Motions to modify the judgment and for a new trial were overruled.

The cause was taken to the Appellate Court on appeal, and two of the judges of the first division of that court being of the opinion that the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Nappanee Canning Co. v. Reid, Murdoch & Co. (1903), 159 Ind. 614 , a ruling precedent, was erroneous, the said cause was transferred to this court, with a written statement of the reasons of said first division of the Appellate Court for its opinion.

The second conclusion of law was that, as to the defendants other than the Goshen Woolen Mills Company, Edmund E. Kerstetter, and. James L. Kerstetter, the plaintiff take nothing, and that those defendants recover their costs. The effect of the second conclusion was to sustain the deed executed by the Goshen Woolen Mills Company to Harry L. Arnold, as trustee, for certain creditors, and to sustain, also, the judgments confessed by the Goshen Woolen Mills Company in favor of certain preferred creditors.

The only question presented here is whether an insolvent manufacturing corporation may lawfully prefer bona fide claims due to creditors who are directors and officers of the *216 corporation, when the vote of one or more of such directors is required to pass the resolution or order authorizing such preference. This subject was very thoroughly considered in the case of the Nappanee Canning Co. v. Reid, Murdoch & Co., supra, which we are now asked to overrule. A reexamination of the authorities referred to in the opinion in that case, and a careful consideration of those cited in the written statement of the appellate judges, satisfy us that our decision was correct, and that we should adhere to the views we then expressed. On the authority of that case the judgment of the St. Joseph Circuit Court is affirmed.

Hadley, J., dissents.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1910: 11913: 21988: 119102026peak 1913 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Miller v. Krause (In re Krause)114 B.R. 582 (Bankr. N.D. Ind. 1988)
  2. Larch v. Holz101 N.E. 127 (Ind. Ct. App. 1913)
  3. D. L. Adams Co. v. Federal Glass Co.103 N.E. 414 (Ind. 1913)
  4. Ward v. Yarnelle91 N.E. 7 (Ind. 1910)

Most recent

  1. Miller v. Krause (In re Krause)114 B.R. 582 (Bankr. N.D. Ind. 1988)
  2. D. L. Adams Co. v. Federal Glass Co.103 N.E. 414 (Ind. 1913)
  3. Larch v. Holz101 N.E. 127 (Ind. Ct. App. 1913)
  4. Ward v. Yarnelle91 N.E. 7 (Ind. 1910)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Nappanee Canning Co. v. Reid, Murdoch & Co., 64 N.E. 870 (Ind. 1902) 21

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list