Rock Island daily Argus. (Rock Island, Ill.) 1886-1893, 1891-06-22
IMPORTANT RULING.
One of Interest to all Commercial
Communities.
which the suprrme Court Has
JG,t Passed.

A decision of our supreme court of
interest 10 the commercial world, was
lately fled at Springfield. 1t discusses
assignments for the benefit of creditors
IN this state. Since the passage of the
assignment act in 1877 there has been
much contrariety of decision among the
courts Of our state. This decision is too
lengthy to insert in full. 1t overrules
the prior decision of the same court in
the same case, made about year ago,
and was made upon petition for a re.
hearing. Its title is "Farwell ct al. VS..
Cohen Ell. al, and, in brief, is as follows:
One George Silverman. of Dapvile,
being heavily indebted, transferred his
stock of goods 10 Daniel Cohen, IN writ
ing, TO secure certain notes aggregating
over SIS, 900, and authorizing said Cohen
to sell such goods at public sale on 10
days notice, and out of the proceeds first
pay the expenses and thereafter the
notes seriatim, to the holders thereof,
respectively.
John V. Farwell & Co, of Chicago,
were creditors of Silverman for about ST.
WV obNa NSiC nv lLCuNIOuCO III SuCu
| written instrument. They filed a peti,
ton. therefore, in the county court at
Danville, alleging that Silverman's lis-
bi!ities exceeded $40 900, and his total
assets less than $4,000; also alleging
that the transfer to Cohen embraced his
total assets, and asking the county court
to cite Cohen and Silvermsn to appear in
such court and under its direction to dis
$ 81
for all the creditors, pro rata.
Cohen filed an answer denying the
jurisdiction of the county court, and adj
hitting that he proposed TO sell the goods
transferred 10 him and dispose of the
proceeds in accordance with the written
instrument delivered to him for that pur-
pose.
The county court assumed jurisdiction,
| discharged Cohen, and appointed another
person trustee, from which decision an
appeal was taken.
The material question for decision by
! our supreme court was whether the in
strument to Cohen was such voluntary
assignment as conferred jurisdiction upon
| the county court to supervise the decis-
! ion OF the trusts herein created.
| Our assignment act is copied from the
| Iowa STATUTE. 1 nat slatUlS, uoHGNtT,
concerns general assignments" while
ours governs "all cases in voluntary as
siguments, whether made by creditor or
creditors" and the transfer to Cohen, even
if but partial assignment, is, if other
wise s valid voluntary assignment. to be
governed by and administered under the
provisions of the act of 1887.
No negative words are used in the act,
declaring the validity of assignments in
| acknowledging and recording. After
debtor has delivered his deed OF assign
ment and possession OF the property
| therein described TO the assignee, he has
no further control over either. The duty
Of recording it devoives upon the assig-
nee. The assignment act was intended
mainly for the benefit of the creditor.
The creditors of Silvermap are not here
ohjecting to the want of the certificate of
acknowledgment, or because the deed was
nat recorded. Sllverman and Cohen
sffi N the validity of the conveyance. and
are e9uitably stopped from saying the IN
strument is not the deed of Silvermsn or
from objecting to it because it was ac-
knowledged and recorded. No matter
what they call the instrument, the law
makes il q voluntary assignment. The
statute enlsrges the trust and makes 1t
inurc TO the benefit of creditors. 1t was
the ststutsry duty then OF Silverman to
ackno Wedge it and of Cohen to have II
recorded. They ought not now to be al
lowed 10 plead their shortcomings to the
detriment of the rights and equities of the
benefic isries in the trust.
The petition of Farwell & Co, alleges
that Cohen is relative of Silvermsn, and
also that he has not, within twenty days,
las the statute requires) filed an inventory
and gwen bond, and asks for his removal.
When a prima facie of assignment is ex'
hibited to the court, it then devolves upon
such court to adjust and determine
whether or not voluntary assignment
has in fact been made; whether or not the
instrument n question is such an assign
mem; and whether or not it was executed
by the supposed assiguor. The court in
which any such proceeding is instituted
must determine the question of Jurisdic
ton.
The finding Of the county court in favo,
of its jurisdiction is affirmed.
Justices Magruder and Wilkins dissent
the latter declaring, "in my opinion the
decision in this case gives the assignment,
statute of this state the effect of an in
voluntary assignment law, and vests
county courts with the jurisdiction of in
voluntary insolvency tribunals. That
Silverman did not attempt or intend &c
make al assignment under the statute,
and that the instrument executed by him
is not such an assignment on its face, is
as l understand, conceded. 1t seems to
me clear that the statute coutemplstes
only general assignment
l find no authority in the statute OF
elsewhere giving county courts OF this
state jurisdiction to bring before them
debtors, who have made convevances OF
property to secure creditors, not purport'
ing or intending to be aR assignment
Under the statute, and either with Oh
without extraneous evidence, to construe