{
  "id": 2871027,
  "name": "S. Adrian Scheltes, Appellee, v. Thomas M. Hunter, Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Scheltes v. Hunter",
  "decision_date": "1915-10-15",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 20,836",
  "first_page": "213",
  "last_page": "216",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "195 Ill. App. 213"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 351,
    "char_count": 6227,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.514,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.856319230494445e-08,
      "percentile": 0.30507164703424794
    },
    "sha256": "323a604379a5734ab8b39c3cf8d6a539b50989254927fd5d347e7f9ea8da0804",
    "simhash": "1:8f58cd214435a3c4",
    "word_count": 1042
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:42:01.145099+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "S. Adrian Scheltes, Appellee, v. Thomas M. Hunter, Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Scanlan\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\n4. Assignments fob benefit of creditors, \u00a7 32 \u2014when evidence sufficient to show valid assignment. In a replevin suit to recover property alleged to have been assigned for the benefit of creditors, evidence examined and held sufficient to show that the assignment had been made with the knowledge and acquiescence of the defendant in replevin.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Scanlan"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "G. L. Wire, for appellant.",
      "Musgrave, Oppenheim & Lee, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "S. Adrian Scheltes, Appellee, v. Thomas M. Hunter, Appellant.\nGen. No. 20,836.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nAppeal from the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. Richabd S. Tuthill, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1914.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed October 15, 1915.\nRehearing denied October 26, 1915.\nCertiorari denied by Supreme Court (making opinion final).\nStatement of the Case.\nReplevin by S. Adrian Scheltes, trustee, plaintiff, against Thomas M. Hunter, bailiff, defendant. On submission of the case, by agreement, to the court without a jury, the court found defendant guilty and that plaintiff was entitled to possession of the property, and assessed plaintiff\u2019s damages at one cent. A motion for new trial was overruled, and from judgment entered on the finding, defendant appeals.\nThe evidence shows that on December 30,1911, Nate Schatz, who was engaged in the clothing business in the city of Chicago, under the name and style of \u201cBart Clothing Company,\u201d executed and delivered to S. A. Scheltes, as trustee, a certain deed of trust purporting to be an assignment for the benefit of the creditors of Schatz. The deed conveyed to the trustee all his merchandise, furniture and fixtures, cash, bills and accounts receivable, and other property owned by him in connection with the said business. At the time of the execution, Schatz was owing a large amount of money, practically all of it to eleven creditors, one of whom was Rose, Rogers and Rose, a corporation, that held a claim amounting to $2,649.06, and the deed was executed in pursuance of an arrangement made at a meeting of certain of the creditors of Schatz, and was ratified and assented to by ten of the said eleven creditors.!\u2122There was a conflict in the evidence as to whether Rose, Rogers and Rose ratified and assented! to the assignment. Immediately after the execution of\u00ae the said deed, the trustee took possession of the property conveyed and appears to have conducted the business from that time until the date of the trial. On May 4,1912, Rose, Rogers and Rose recovered a judgment against the said Schatz, in the Municipal Court of Chicago, in the sum of $2,671. Execution was issued on this judgment and placed in the hands of Thomas M. Hunter, the bailiff of said court, who, on or about June 4, 1912, seized 400 suits of men\u2019s clothing in the hands of the said trustee.\nThe declaration consists of the usual counts in replevin. The defendant filed two pleas; the first averring that the property replevined was the property of Nathan Schatz and not of the plaintiff, the second averring justification of the seizure as bailiff of the said court under a writ of execution in full force and effect, issued by the said court on the said judgment in favor of Rose, Rogers and Rose. To these pleas the plaintiff filed a replication.\nThe defendant contended \u201cthat the alleged assignment for the benefit of creditors is void because it tends to hinder, delay and defraud creditors. Being void, no title, to any property of Schatz passed to Scheltes, the plaintiff in this replevin action\u201d; that the goods seized by the defendant as bailiff of the Municipal Court were in fact the goods of Schatz, and that the trial court erred in rendering' judgment in favor of the plaintiff. The defendant further contended that \u201cthe plaintiff did not establish an estoppel by a preponderance of the evidence.\u201d\nThe plaintiff contended: \u201c1. The deed of trust was not made to hinder, delay and defraud creditors, and was not fraudulent or void. 2. A preponderance of the evidence clearly establishes that the deed of trust was made with the full knowledge and acquiescence of R\u00f3se, Rogers and Rose, and, therefore, was and is \u2022binding upon them. 3. The goods seized by the bailiff under the execution were goods purchased by S. Adrian Sckeltes, as trustee, and were not subject to seizure under execution against Nate Schatz, the original assignor, even though the original conveyance to the trustee were fraudulent and void.\u201d\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Fraudulent conveyances, \u00a7155 \u2014when valid inter partes. A conveyance made to defraud creditors is valid inter partes.\n2. Fraudulent conveyances, \u00a7 180 \u2014when voidable. Even as to creditors who are not parties to an assignment and who do not assent to its being made, a fraudulent assignment is not void but only voidable.\n3. Assignments fob benefit of creditors, \u00a7 32 \u2014when assenting creditor cannot attach assignment. A creditor who has full knowledge of the making of an assignment for the benefit of creditors and acquiesces therein is bound by the assignment and cannot attack- it as a fraudulent conveyance, such assignment being neither void nor voidable as to him.\nThe defendant contended that even if it be conceded that Rose, Rogers and Rose, with full knowledge of the assignment, acquiesced therein, nevertheless, the conveyance is absolutely void because \u201cit permitted the trustee to carry on the business; it authorized him to purchase new merchandise and render the trust estate liable for any loss or profit that would he made out of the new merchandise; it authorized him to pay all expenses incurred by him in the conduct of the business irrespective of whether the expenses were necessary or not; it absolutely required the trustee to employ Schatz and pay him $50 per week; it required the trustee to pay premiums on the life insurance taken out on the life of Schatz; it authorized the trustee to make sales of goods on credit; it limited the liability of the trustee.\u201d\nG. L. Wire, for appellant.\nMusgrave, Oppenheim & Lee, for appellee.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0213-01",
  "first_page_order": 239,
  "last_page_order": 242
}