Gwinn Brothers Co. v. Peoples Gen. Store

6 Citing cases

  1. Red Top Gas v. Dale Hensley Fred Hawkins

    441 S.W.2d 325 (Mo. 1969)   Cited 1 times

    The corporate defendants insist that Red Top is estopped to assert the invalidity of the sale because of noncompliance with the Bulk Sales Law and that there is no monetary liability on their part for the debts of the partnership. The right to the benefit of bulk sales statutes may be waived and creditors may be estopped to make claim thereunder where they consent to, or acquiesce in, a bulk sale. 37 Am.Jur.2d Fraudulent Conveyances ยง 266, citing In Re Gill-Owen Co., 7 Cir., 204 F.2d 520, cert. den. 346 U.S. 886, 74 S.Ct. 138, 98 L.Ed. 391; Nokes v. Wade, 243 Iowa 1288, 55 N.W.2d 187; Evans v. Herbranson, 241 Iowa 268, 41 N.W.2d 113, 15 A.L.R.2d 925; Gwinn Bros. Co. v. Peoples General Store, 269 Ky. 813, 108 S.W.2d 1001; United States Rubber Co. v. Ball, La.App., 153 So.2d 203; Coffey v. McGahey, 181 Mich. 225, 148 N.W. 356; Ogdensburg Wholesale Mercantile Co. v. Curry, 148 Misc. 806, 266 N.Y.S. 222, affd. without op. 241 App.Div. 786, 270 N.Y.S. 1018; First Bank of Texola v. Terrell, 44 Okl. 719, 145 P. 1140; Branham v. Jackson, 12 Utah 2d 399, 367 P.2d 187; State Bank of Viroqua v. Jackson, 261 Wis. 538, 53 N.W.2d 433; Anno. 15 A.L.R.2d 939, ยง 2. On these facts the creditor Red Top has waived its right to avoid and is estopped to assert the invalidity of the sale on the ground of noncompliance with the Bulk Sales Law, and therefore the dismissal of the petition as to the corporate defendants must be upheld insofar as the validity of the sale is concerned. Red Top's president first suggested to the purchaser's representative the possibility that the partnership business was for sale and enlisted his interest.

  2. Cain v. Pratt

    80 So. 2d 41 (Miss. 1955)   Cited 1 times

    I. Appellant was not entitled to the benefit of the Bulk Sales Act, due to his actions, conduct and acquiescence in the sale. Chelsea Sales Corp. v. A. Jacobs Co., Inc. (La.), 193 So. 402; Gwinn Bros. Co. v. Peoples General Stores, 269 Ky. 813, 108 S.W.2d 1001; Jeffry Hotel Corp. v. Chicopulos, 262 Ill. App. 537; Kinney v. Yoelin Bros. Mercantile Co., 76 Colo. 136, 230 P. 127; M.L. Bath Co., Ltd. v. Booth-McLelland Chevrolet Co. (La.), 142 So. 353; National Grocer Co. v. Plotler, 167 Mich. 626, 133 N.W. 493; Palo Savings Bank v. Cameron, 184 Iowa 183, 168 N.W. 769; Wolfe v. Bellfair Hat Co., 47 N.Y.S.2d 908; Wright v. Scotton, 13 Del. Ch. 402, 121 A. 66-72, 31 A.L.R. 1162; Sec. 274, Code 1942; 24 Am. Jur. 32; Anno. 15 A.L.R. 2d 937-49; Griffith's Miss. Chancery Practice (2d ed.), Sec. 32. II. The Court had no jurisdiction of this attachment proceedings as there was no property of a nonresident defendant in the hands of a resident defendant.

  3. Evans v. Herbranson

    41 N.W.2d 113 (Iowa 1950)   Cited 13 times

    Under the statute the plaintiffs were entitled to notice of the sale from defendants personally or by registered mail. They learned of the sale from other sources on or before January 27, 1949, on which date they filed petition in the law action. The defendants in that action were the primary debtors and were directly liable, and a recovery would have relieved the purchasers from any liability. 37 C.J.S., Fraudulent Conveyances, section 478, page 1329; Gwinn Bros. Co. v. Peoples General Store, 269 Ky. 813, 108 S.W.2d 1001, 1002. Just when the sellers removed to Minnesota with their property does not appear. There is no reasonable basis for defendants' contention that plaintiffs in filing the law action made an election not to pursue their remedies under the Bulk Sales law or to release defendants and the property purchased from any liability. Defendants had no knowledge of the law action and of course made no payment on the purchase price or did anything to their own prejudice because thereof. The fact that plaintiffs brought the equity suit is some indication that they made no election by suing at law and had no intention of acquiescing in the sale or of waiving any rights under the Bulk Sales law. Plaintiffs did nothing to estop themselves from maintaining the equity suit.

  4. Cornelius v. J R Motor Supply Corporation

    468 S.W.2d 781 (Ky. Ct. App. 1971)   Cited 4 times

    The creditors are not to be penalized for filing their respective claims in the bankruptcy proceedings. Gwinn Brothers Co. v. Peoples General Store, 269 Ky. 813, 108 S.W.2d 1001 (1937). A dividend may be received and if so credit should be given but only to the extent of preventing the two creditors from recovering more than their respective claims in full.

  5. Bomanzi of Lexington, Inc. v. Tafel

    415 S.W.2d 627 (Ky. Ct. App. 1967)   Cited 7 times

    KRS 378.070(1). National Roofing Materials Co. v. Smith, 165 Ky. 848, 178 S.W. 1125; Gwinn Bros. Co. v. Peoples General Store, et al., 269 Ky. 813, 108 S.W.2d 1001. Appellant states that "Relief to set aside the transfer or to consider the sale void was not sought in the complaint, * * *". The complaint is before us. After demanding judgment for $4,800.00 and interest from August 31, 1962, against Bomanzi, Inc., there is the further demand, "2. That the aforesaid transfer be declared void and inoperative as to the plaintiff and that the property transferred, or a sufficient amount thereof, be subject to plaintiff's claim."

  6. Montgomery v. Koch

    251 S.W.2d 235 (Ky. Ct. App. 1952)   Cited 25 times

    KRS 377.050 provides that: "* * * the purchaser * * * shall be liable to the creditors of the vendor for the fair value of the property so bought or sold." In Gwinn Bros. Co. v. Peoples General Store, 269 Ky. 813, 108 S.W.2d 1001, we held the purchaser would be personally liable to the creditors under Kentucky Stat. ยง 2651a-3, which had substantially the same wording as the part of KRS 377.050 quoted above. There is no merit in this contention.