Rainwater v. Wildman
Supreme Court of Arkansas
1Opinion of the Court
Hart, J.,
(after stating the facts).- It is the settled doctrine in this State that a cestui que trust who can trace trust funds into a particular property may assert .a right to that property and its proceeds, if the proceeds are traceable and are found in the hands of those who can assert no better right thereto.
In Hill v. Miles, 83 Ark. 487, 104 S. W. 199, the court held: ‘ ‘ The mere fact that an insolvent bank owes one for trust funds does not entitle such creditor to a preference, to obtain which he must show that the receiver or person having charge of the assets of the insolvent hank…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Matter of Cavin v. . GleasonNew York Court of Appeals · 1887
- Red Bud Realty Co. v. SouthSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1910
3Cited by6 opinions
- In Re Van MeterDistrict Court, W.D. Arkansas · 1955
- Word v. SparksSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1935
- Murry v. HaleDistrict Court, E.D. Arkansas · 1962
- Johnson v. JohnsonDistrict Court, W.D. Arkansas · 1957
- Thomas v. WassonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1935
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.