Goodbar Shoe Co. v. Montgomery
Mississippi Supreme Court
From the circuit court of the second district of Hinds county. Hon. J. B. Chrisman, Judge. The assignment in question was that of an insolvent merchant; was one with preferences, and included his entire stock of merchandise, but not all of his evidences of debt. The evidence showed that the debt of his brother, W. Gr. Redfield, a preferred creditor, was stated in the schedule of liabilities at several hundred dollars in excess of the true amount.
Read the full summary
From the circuit court of the second district of Hinds county. Hon. J. B. Chrisman, Judge. The assignment in question was that of an insolvent merchant; was one with preferences, and included his entire stock of merchandise, but not all of his evidences of debt. The evidence showed that the debt of his brother, W. Gr. Redfield, a preferred creditor, was stated in the schedule of liabilities at several hundred dollars in excess of the true amount. It appeared, also, from the evidence that this excess was the result of an erroneous credit given him on the books of the assignor, from which it…
1Opinion of the CourtWhitfield, J.
The distinction between the clauses in the assignment in Hiller v. Ellis, 72 Miss., 701, and the clause in this assignment is clear. The former, in the body of the instrument, directed the assignee to pay in full the notes themselves, with interest, thus fixing the amount to be paid; and the power given the assignee to correct schedules of liabilities was in these words: ‘ ‘ But if, by reason of inadvertence, there be any mistake in omitting any of the liabilities of the said party of the first part from said schedule B, or errors in amounts thereof,” then the assignee was “empowered to…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Hiller v. EllisMississippi Supreme Court · 1895
- H. Wetter Manufacturing Co. v. DinkinsMississippi Supreme Court · 1893