Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

93 Wis. 249

Loeb v. O'Brien

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided May 1, 1896

Wisconsin Supreme Court · decided 1896-05-01

Bennett, Circuit Judge. Garnishment. The plaintiff Loeb and others were creditors of one Allen, who was operating an hotel at Janesville up to the 28th day of February, 1894. On the 1st of March,. 1894, the plaintiffs sued Allen in justice’s court, and garnished O'Brien.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Affirmed · Decided 1896-05-01

How this case has been cited

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently April 1913

3 state decisions

10189619001910decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Winslow, J.

¶1The plaintiffs’ claim was that at the time of the service of the garnishee summons the garnishee was in *250possession of the furniture of the hotel by virtue of a bill of sale thereof from Allen which was fraudulent as to Allen’s creditors. The evidence showed that on the 27th day of February, 1894, Allen made a bill of sale of the hotel furniture to O'Brien for the expressed consideration of $575, and that on the same day O’Brien executed a bill of sale of the same property to one Charles M. Price for the same expressed consideration; that Allen left the city upon the following day, and that his wife followed him a few days later; and that Price took possession of the property on or about March 4, 1894. There was evidence tending to show that these transactions were tona fide transactions; that O'Brien paid Allen full value for the property, and took the title in good faith and pursuant to a valid agreement between Price and Allen, by which O’Brien was to take and pay for the property and hold it for a few days, when Price would be ready to take and pay for it. There was also evidence tending to show that the transfer to O’Brien was a mere cover and fraudulent as to creditors; but we are unable to say, after examination of the testimony, that there was a clear preponderance of evidence against the findings of the circuit judge. The judgment must therefore be affirmed.

¶2By the Court.— Judgment affirmed.

/93/wis/249 · .json · Public domain