Case ID: wis_91/html/0058-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      NewhaN, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Stevens, Intervener, Appellant, vs. Williams, Assignee, Respondent.
    
      September 9
    
    September 26, 1895.
    
    
      BanTcs and banking: Voluntary assignment: Preferences: Trust fund.
    
    A county treasurer kept some of the county’s moneys as a general deposit with a banker who knew that he deposited such moneys. The banker made an assignment for the benefit of his creditors, and a sum of money then in the bank came to the assignee. Held, that these facts did not entitle the treasurer to have his claim preferred.
    Appeal from an order of tbe circuit court for Monroe county: O. B. "Wyman, Circuit Judge.
    
      Affirmed.
    
    This was an application by tbe appellant, by petition in tbe matter of tbe voluntary assignment of Mason A. Tbayer, to bave bis claim adjudged a preferred claim and paid in full.
    Tbe appellant was county treasurer of Monroe county; Tbe respondent is tbe assignee for tbe benefit of creditors of Mason A. Tbayer. Tbayer was a banker at Sparta. Tbe appellant kept some of tbe county’s moneys in Tbayer’s bank, as a general deposit. Tbayer knew that be deposited tbe county’s moneys. Tbe bank failed, having many creditors and large indebtedness. A sum of money wbicb was in tbe bank at tbe time of tbe assignment came to tbe as-signee. Upon these facts tbe appellant claims that be has identified tbe money wbicb came to tbe bands of tbe assignee as tbe same money wbicb be deposited, and so that be is entitled to bave bis claim preferred. Tbe circuit court denied bis application. He appeals.
    
      8. W. Button, for tbe appellant.
    For tbe respondent there was a brief signed by Morrow & Masters and Losey <& Woodward, and oral argument by J. M. Morrow.
    
   NewhaN, J.

This case is ruled, against the appellant, by the following recent cases in this court: Nonotuck Silk Co. v. Flanders, 87 Wis. 237; Henry v. Martin, 88 Wis. 367; Burnham v. Barth, 89 Wis. 362; Thuemmler v. Barth, 89 Wis. 381; Henika v. Heinemann, 90 Wis. 478; Gianella v. Momsen, 90 Wis. 476. By the same method and amount of proof it can be shown, with equal directness and certainty, that this fund is the particular money of each one of the several creditors of the insolvent bank. Because each one of the several creditors cannot in the nature of things have the entire fund, each must be content with his own fair share' of it.

By the Court.— The order of the circuit court is affirmed.