The clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1883-1888, 1886-04-14
SUPREME COURT CASES.
Reported for The Clarion bv w. H. Harper
Attorney Law, Jackson, Miss
October Term-Isss.

OctODGr TeTn-ISo5.
srRoyo,l
KREBs.
Appeal from the Chancery Court of
Jackson county. Hon. Sylvanus Evans,
Chancellor.
CAMPBELL, J., delivered the opinion of
the court.
A. c. Danner & Co. entered into a
certain agreement in writing with Mead
Bros, and afterwards Danner & Co.,
sold out all their interest, including
their rights under this agreement with
Mead Bros, to the fDanner Land and
Lumber Company" A. &. Danner *
Co. had exhibited a bill against Mead
Bros. The "Danner Land and Lumber
Company" having failed, j. {. Strong,
the assignee of the same, was made party
complainant in place of banner a. Co.
The bill set out that A. Z. Danner &
Co. had entered into an agreement with
Mead Bros, whereby the latter obligated
themselves to lease from the former a
certain mill site for five years, and to
erect thereon saw mill. They further
agreed to purchase from Danner Il Co.
such merchantable saw logs as Iaight be
rendered them. not exceeding a certain
quantity, with an option to cut their
own saw logs from the land of banner
& Co. at a fixed rate; il was agreed that
all lumber manufactured Mt this mill
should be sold only to said A. G. Danner
IL Co. at the prices and under the condi-
- 4 IL. E.o4
the Mead Bros. agreed that they would
not sell any of this lumber to any one
else except upon the written consent Of
Danner x Co., that they would not IN
derlet or surrender possession of the
premises or any part thereof during
their term; that they, the Mead Bros,
at the expiration of their lease, might
remove their mill, fixtures and machin-
cry, leaving the site in the same condi-
ton as they found it; that after ten
DAYS notice of anv breach by the Mead
Bros, banner & Co. might enter and
take possession. The bill further shows
that Danner & Co. performed their part
of the contract, but that the Mead Bros
long before their term expired, made an
assignment of their lease and large lot
of personal property, including the saw
mill and fixtures erected in accordance
with the above contract and large lot
of lumber sawed at the mill and saw logs
furnished by and taken from the land
of Danner & Co. in accordance with the
above described contract; that this as
signment was made to II. G. Krebs for
the benefit Of certain preferred credi-
tors therein mentioned; that Mead
Bros. were indebted to Danner and Co.
in large sum on open and stated
account for advances made to run the
saw-mill, but the latter were not among
the preferred creditors, and that krebs
knew of the contract between Danner &
Co. and the Mead Bros. The bill fur
Their sets out that the Mead Bros. are
insolyent and cannot respond to any
damages for a breach of their contract
that they paid no rent for the mill site,
and on the Oath day Of September, 1884
after notice as required by the contract
Danner & Co. demapned possession OF
the leased premises and all logs and
lumber thereon The bill prays an in.
junction to prevent III. F. Krebs, the
assignee, from disposing of the property
assigned to him by the Mead Bros, and
that this property be subjected to the
claim of the complainants. The defen
dants filed an answer and cross bill, anC
on the hearing the original bill was dis
missed and complainant appealed. Held
That the only idea on which this bill
could be maintained is, that there was /;
trust between the parties to the contrac
set forth by it, but we fail to discover
any such fiduciary relation springins
| ba IN ~
court of chancery to redress the wrong
done by its violation. 1t present
the ordinary instance of contrac
whose violation may be amply compen
stated for by damages in an action a
law, and the fact that judgment 70
damages would yield no fruit because o
insolvency does not change the rule.
The claim of the complainants is no
stronger than that of the merchant VIII
furnished the means to produce a GRO
of cotton upon the promise of the pro
Queer to ship the cotton in discharge o
the debt for the means to make it; ant
it was held that the creditor had n
. equity as to the cotton which court o
chancery could specifically enforce. 4
Miss, 101.
The complainants had no lien b
virtue of the contract, on the logs @
saw lumber, and if they were owners c
these things, an action at law was th
) appropriate remedy for recovery.
was not in legal contemplation a frau
for Mead Bros. to make an assignmer
of their property, including the logs an
lumbe4, for creditors with a preferenc
for others than the complainants. How
ever strong the moral claim may be {
the seller of gooGs that they should M
be devoted to the payment of other
instead of him, if he has no lien,
: results from the ownership of his yend'
!, that this may occur. 46iyned.
:, L. Brame, for the appellant.
Seal & Bloomfield, for the appellee