Case ID: f_69/html/0328-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

DRAKE v. PAULHAMUS.
    (Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    June 24, 1895.)
    No. 180.
    Assignment for Benefit of Creditors—Validity.
    In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Western Division of the District of Washington.
    This was an action by W. H. Paulhamus against James C. Drake for wrongfully taking a stock of goods from plaintiff’s possession. The defense was that Drake was a United States marshal, and took the property under a writ of attachment as being the property of one W. R. Lindsay; and that Lindsay had conveyed it to Paulhamus unlawfully and fraudulently, in trust for the payment of debts. In the circuit court there was a judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brought error to this court, by which the judgment was heretofore affirmed. 66 Fed. 895. Plaintiff in error now moves for a rehearing.
    Doolittle ¿fe Fogg (C. 0. Bates and Le Roy A. Palmer, of counsel), for plaintiff in error.
    Frederick A. Brown, for defendant in error.
    Before GILBERT, Circuit Judge, and KNOWLES and BELLINGER, District Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

In the petition for rehearing it is urged that the court overlooked the distinction between an assignment directly to creditors, and one in trust for creditors. The distinction was not overlooked. 30 there was a trust: created between Paulhamus and ilie creditors, whose assignee he was, it was not created by Lindsay, the debtor. Lockhart v. Stevenson, 61 Pa. St. 64. The rehearing is therefore denied.