|Court of Appeals of Kentucky.|
|THOMPSON & CO. v. TAYLOR et al.|
|Jan. 13, 1910.|
|ACTION: Reversed as to defendant J. M. Taylor, and affirmed as to Pearl Taylor.|
Appeal from Circuit Court, Bell County.
"Not to be officially reported."
Action by Thompson & Co. against J. M. Taylor and another.
From a judgment for defendants, plaintiff appeals.
The appellants Thompson & Co. are merchants in Louisville, Ky. The appellee J. M. Taylor was their agent in Pineville, Ky. The scope of his agency originally was to solicit orders for the purchase of fruits and vegetables and such like merchandise, and to send these on to his principals, who shipped the goods to the customers and collected the accounts. G. D. Taylor was an impecunious first cousin of J. M. Taylor. The latter, desiring to aid his cousin, employed him to place orders for his principals, but did not expressly authorize him to collect anything for appellants. It seems, however, that G. D. Taylor collected from various customers sums aggregating $117.81, which he failed to pay over, but appropriated to his own use. An investigation uncovered these transactions, and G. D. Taylor thereupon paid over $33, which he still had in his possession, leaving a balance due of $84.81. Subsequently he fled the country, and it is said that he has since died. Thompson & Co. thereupon instituted this action against J. M. Taylor to recover a judgment for the sum of $84.81, collected, as aforesaid, by G. D. Taylor, and also to subject a small tract of land which stood in the name of Pearl Taylor, the wife of J. M. Taylor, to the payment of her husband's debt, on the theory that this land had been fraudulently conveyed by the husband to the wife. J. M. Taylor placed in issue all of the allegations of the petition which alleged authority in G. D. Taylor to collect accounts belonging to Thompson & Co., and also denied all the allegations of fraud in connection with the conveyance of the property to his wife. The case having been submitted to the chancellor for final judgment, he dismissed the petition, and from this order Thompson & Co. have prosecuted this appeal.
We think the court erred in dismissing the petition, in so far as it sought a judgment against J. M. Taylor for the money collected by his clerk, G. D. Taylor. The evidence clearly shows that J. M. Taylor frequently collected money from the customers of his principals and forwarded it to them at Louisville. It also shows that he knew that G. D. Taylor had been collecting money from the customers of Thompson & Co. prior to the wrongful conversion complained of in this case. This being true, he is responsible for the acts of his clerk.
But we think the court correctly dismissed the petition as to Pearl Taylor. The evidence shows, without contradiction, that the purchase of the little home which stands in the name of the wife was made partly with merchandise of the husband which had been set aside to him as exempt under the statute, and partly with money of the wife derived from the sale of realty given her by her father. This being true, nothing went into the purchase of the home to which the creditors were entitled; and therefore they cannot ask that the property in question be subjected to their debts.
For these reasons, the judgment is reversed as to J. M. Taylor for further proceedings consistent herewith, and affirmed as to Pearl Taylor.
THOMPSON & CO. v. TAYLOR et al.
124 S.W. 357
Last Update Tuesday, 18-Dec-2012 01:38:16 EST
Copyright © 2015 by the KYGenWeb Team. All
rights reserved. Copyright of submitted items
belongs to those responsible for their authorship or
creation unless otherwise assigned.