The Democratic press. [volume] (Ravenna, O. [Ohio]) 1868-1901, 1890-02-19

H. B. Dickinson, as trustee and assignee OF |
the Enterprise Egg Case Co., has commenced |
suit in the Common Pleas Court against the
Second National Bank of this city. In his Pc
tition he represents 10 the Court that the COM
pany made an assignment. July 4th. 1889, to
Bradford Rowland. for the bene fit of creditors;
that on failure of MIR H to qualify as assignee.
the plaintiff was appointed in his stead; that
there has come into his hands, as such assignee.
about $50 company assets-insufficient to pay
costs of administering and settling the estate
md that there are no other assets save as here
in after stated.
At the time of the assignment he alleges that
large number of operatives had performed
labor for the company. necessary for carrying
on its regular and ordinary business, and to
which operatives said company was iHdebted
for wages then due to them for such labor and
service performed by them within IL months
Immediately prior to said assignment. and not
| exceeding $500 to any one of said operatives "
Then follows list of 81 names of employees,
whose aggregate claims against the company
| for labor amount to $535 25.
The petition then states that these are pre-
| ferred claims under Ohio laws, and especially
under section 6555 of the Revised Statutes.
| Each claim is stated to have been verified.
presented and allowed by the assignee
|
no assets or property of any kind belonging to
said company, or your petitioner as its assignee,
save certain property in the possession of the
| defendant. and the proceeds thereof as herein
after set FORTH" and it is necessary for plaintiff
| to have the same to pay said claims and to pay
| 1854 taxes for 1850.
| June 1st, 1889. defendant. within two months
prior to assignment, having pretending to
| have debt Sainst the company, took chat Ell
mortgage on all its personal property. which
chattel mortgage was taken with the intention
| and for the purpose Of ere 4ting preference in
| its favor among the creditors of said idsolvent
| company. and against the other creditors there
off, including SO id labor claims; that portion
of said claim was due at the time of taking
said chattel mortgage, which was given to Sc
| cure pre-e xstidg debt and not for a presen t
| consideration.
| July Sd, 1889. defendant obtained judgment
| by confession. in Cuyahoga county, on warrant
of attorney against the company, and on same
day levied on all the company's personal prop
erty. and at its sale was bought by officers of
said Bank for about 81 i.2OO-although worth
$4.00O-and was bid in either for Bank or in its
interest The property so sold was that covered
by chattel mortgage as well as other property.
December 20th, 1859, plaintiff served written
notice on the Bank President apprising him of
his appointment as assignee and of the indebt-
edness of the company to divers persons for
work and labor, amounting to about $685. %
exclusive of interest, and demanded sufficient
of said property in defendants hands or of the
amount of money realized therefrom to pay
said claim and taxes, which demand the Bank
refused and denies all liability on same.
The plaintiff says that the chattel mortga ge
and judgment by confession are unauthorized
| nv law and are n n force validity
5 the said claims. He prays the Court to ascer-
5 tain the amount of taxes. and to decree rea
sonable amount for attorneys fees, costs o
l suit, and Bank be ordered to pay the same tt
plaintiff, ard in default that execution issue.
} This is an interesting case and if contested
by the Bank, will involve long inquiry int
issues Of fact