Arnold v. Hatch,
177 U.S. 276 (1900)

Annotate this Case
  • Syllabus  | 
  • Case

U.S. Supreme Court

Arnold v. Hatch, 177 U.S. 276 (1900)

Arnold v. Hatch

No. 183

Argued March 14, 1900

Decided April 9, 1900

177 U.S. 276


A farmer made an arrangement with his son under which it was agreed that the latter should undertake the management of the farm, farm implements, and livestock, make all repairs, pay all taxes and other expenses, sell the products of the farm, replace all implements as they wore out, keep up all livestock, and have as his own the net profits. It was further agreed that each party should be at liberty to terminate the arrangement at any time, and that the son should return to his father the farm with its implements, stock and other personalty, of the same kind and amount as was on the farm when the father retired, and as in good condition as when he took it. Held that no sale of the farm property was intended, that the title to the same remained in the father, and that the property was not subject to execution by creditors of the son.

This was an intervening petition by the defendant in error,

Page 177 U. S. 277

Lewis Hatch, filed in the District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, in the case of Joseph G. Heim, Receiver v. Frank W. Hatch, praying for the release by the marshal and a return to petitioner of a large amount of cattle and other farm property alleged to belong to him, and levied upon by the marshal as the property of Frank W. Hatch.

The cause originated in an action begun in the District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, by Joseph G. Heim, as receiver of the First National Bank of Southbend, Washington, against Frank W. Hatch, to enforce against the defendant an individual liability as a stockholder of the bank, which had become insolvent. Defendant having made default, a judgment was rendered against him in the sum of $4,351.09 and costs, for which an execution was issued and levied upon the cattle and other farm property in dispute. Whereupon Lewis Hatch, the father of Frank W. Hatch, filed this petition, to which the plaintiff in error, John W. Arnold, Marshal for the Northern District of Illinois, made answer, denying the petitioner's ownership of the property, and admitting his levy upon it as the property of Frank W. Hatch.

The case came on for trial before a jury, and resulted in a verdict for the petitioner, upon which judgment was entered. On writ of error from the circuit court of appeals, this judgment was affirmed. 89 F. 1013. Whereupon plaintiff in error, Arnold, sued out a writ of error from this Court.

Disclaimer: Official Supreme Court case law is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia case law is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.