Muchmore v. Budd
Supreme Court of New Jersey
On error. This cause was tried at Essex Circuit before the court without a jury. The court found the following facts to have been proved: On February 27th, 1889, James S. Cunningham was the owner of the goods and chattels described in plaintiff’s declaration.
Read the full summary
On error. This cause was tried at Essex Circuit before the court without a jury. The court found the following facts to have been proved: On February 27th, 1889, James S. Cunningham was the owner of the goods and chattels described in plaintiff’s declaration. Previous to that day judgments had been entered against said Cunningham in favor of J. C. Smith and others, creditors, on which there was due $337.01. Executions had been issued upon these judgments, levies taken on the said goods and chattels, and the store in which they were was closed and in possession of the officers. On that day…
1DissentBeasley, Chief Justice
This controversy respects the legal effect of a voluntary assignment by an insolvent debtor in favor of certain of his creditors.
Eor immediate purposes it will be sufficient to state that the transaction giving rise to the litigation was this: The debtor-in question was insolvent, and he assigned to one Alonzo Somerville, who was not a creditor, all his property, with the exception of his wearing apparel, such property consisting of certain chattels of the admitted value of $1,000, and the moneys due upon his books of account, the value of such accounts not being shown. His debts were about…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- M'Culloch v. HutchinsonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1838
- In re New York Central & Hudson River RailroadNew York Court of Appeals · 1875