Legal Opinion

Eames v. Kaiser

Supreme Court of the United States

Decided January 11, 1892No. 125PublishedCited by 7 opinions

ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS. The court stated the case as follows-: This action was originally commenced in the District Court of Tarrant County, Texas, by Samuel Kaiser against H. R. Claflin & Co., alleged to be a firm composed of plaintiffs in error and H. B. Claflin, and L. Levinson & Co., another firm, composed of L., Michael, and Max Levinson, all averred to. be citizens of New York, to recover damages for the…

Read the full summary

ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS. The court stated the case as follows-: This action was originally commenced in the District Court of Tarrant County, Texas, by Samuel Kaiser against H. R. Claflin & Co., alleged to be a firm composed of plaintiffs in error and H. B. Claflin, and L. Levinson & Co., another firm, composed of L., Michael, and Max Levinson, all averred to. be citizens of New York, to recover damages for the wrongful t issue and levy of two writs of attachment against Kaiser, one in favor of H. B. Claflin & Co., and the other in…

1Opinion of the CourtChief Justice Fullee

The affidavit on which the attachment writ in favor of Olaflin & Co. issued, averred that Kaiser was “about to convert bis property, or a part thereof, into money for the purpose of placing it beyond the reach of his creditors,” and this action was predicated upon the falsity of that averment.

The record discloses that proof was adduced upon the trial tending to show an intent on Kaiser’s part, at the time of the. suing out and levy of the attachment, to defraud his creditors by secreting his property, by putting it into the shape of notes, and by fraudulently placing them beyond the reach' of…

2Cited by7 opinions

  1. Prout v. Bernards Land & Sand Co.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1909
  2. Leach v. EdgertonSupreme Court of Iowa · 1926
  3. Sonnentheil v. Texas Guaranty & Trust Co.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1895
  4. Hoomana Naauao O Hawaii, an Ecclesiastical Corp. v. PaliHawaii Supreme Court · 1940
  5. Mannix v. the Portland TelegramOregon Supreme Court · 1931

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API