Case Name: Claflin & Co. et al. v. Vonderau & Co. et al.
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia
Jurisdiction: Georgia
Decision Date: 1895-06-10
Citations: 97 Ga. 224
Docket Number: 
Parties: Claflin & Co. et al. v. Vonderau & Co. et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: Georgia Reports
Volume: 97
Pages: 224–228

Head Matter:
Claflin & Co. et al. v. Vonderau & Co. et al.
June 10, 1895.
Petition for injunction and receiver. Before Judge Hutchins. Clarke county. February 4, 1895.
Oh December 7, 1894, Yonderau & Co., a firm composed of W. P. Yonderau and A. S. Parker, executed and filed for record an assignment for creditors, to A. "W. Yess. On the same day they filed a mortgage on their stock of goods in favor of some of the preferred creditors mentioned in the assignment deed, this mortgage being dated November 28, 1894. Yess accepted the trust delegated in the assignment, on the day it was executed. One month afterwards, the H. B. Claflin Co-, and several other creditors brought their petition to set aside the assignment as illegal and void, and as made to hinder, delay and defraud creditors of the assignors; and for injunction and receiver. The pleadings and evidence need not be set forth here. On the hearing the court rendered the following judgment: “Upon considering the allegations made in the petition, the answers of the defendants, the evidence as contained in the documents and affidavits submitted, and the argument of counsel, and being of the opinion that the inventory and schedules attached to the assignment are sufficiently full and complete to put parties interested on notice, and not to be misleading; that the allegations of fraud in making tbe assignment and tbe preferences thereby given,' are not sustained by proof; and that' it is to the interest of creditors that the assignee, who is under good bond for the faithful performance of his'duties, shall proceed with the. execution of his trust: — the application for the appoint-' ment of a permanent receiver and for injunction (except as', hereinafter provided) is refused. The order appointing a: temporary receiver is revoked, and it is ordered that E. ~W. Lucas the temporary receiver, restore to the possession of said assignee, A. W. Yess, all assets of every description now in his possession or control, and account for and pay to him all moneys that have come into his hands as such temporary receiver, less what he has expended in his management of the business. But in view of the evidence touching the purchases by the defendants of merchandise from II. B. Claflin Co., and from O. E.. Graham & Co., respectively, it is ordered that said assignee keep separate accounts of his sales of the bill of goods identified by the affidavit of II. L. Cook as purchased of H. B. Claflin Co. in the months of August and September, 1894, and that identified by the affidavit of ~W. J. Graham as purchased of C. E. Graham & Co. during said months, and that he retain and have the proceeds thereof subject to the order of the court upon the final order and decree in this case.”

Opinion:
Atkinson, J.
1. The inventory and schedule of property attached to the assignment covering in terms all the property owned by the assignors, containing a specification of all classes of the goods assigned, and designating the locality at which they were to be found, was, in legal contemplation, sufficiently full and complete. At least this inventory and schedule was made substantially in compliance with the terms of the statute.
2. On the merits, there was, in view of the evidence contained in the record, no abuse of discretion in denying the injunction, or in refusing to appoint a permanent receiver.
Judgment affirmed.