King v. Moody
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
Case 13—EQUITY APPEAL FROM SIIELBY CIRCUIT COURT. 1. The proof shows that Bright’s assets exceeded his liabilities'several thousand dollars. 2. Insolvency and a design to prefer creditors must concur before the trust for the benefit of all his creditors can result from the operation of the statute.
Read the full summary
Case 13—EQUITY APPEAL FROM SIIELBY CIRCUIT COURT. 1. The proof shows that Bright’s assets exceeded his liabilities'several thousand dollars. 2. Insolvency and a design to prefer creditors must concur before the trust for the benefit of all his creditors can result from the operation of the statute. (11 Bush, 353.) 3. Bright could not know, nor could he believe, with any reasonable certainty, that he would he called on to pay the debts he owed for others as surety. 1. The statute evidently designed to secure an equal distribution of the estates of insolvent debtors, and to prevent an evasion…
1Opinion of the Court
JUDGE COFER
delivered the opinion of the court.
The total amount of Bright’s individual indebtedness at the time he made the payments amounted to the sum of $8,136 20, including interest on King’s debt, and $125 to Ford. His assets amounted to about $9,000, exclusive of the railroad stock and bonds, which had only a speculative value, and could not be relied upon for the payment of debts.
He was surety for J. M. Calloway to Guthrie for $2,593,- and for Jones & Bro.for $600. Calloway was dead, and his estate insolvent, and Bright supposed then that it would pay from twenty-five to fifty per cent.…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Sawyers v. LangfordCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1869
- Temple, Barker & Co. v. PoyntzCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1865
- Wilson v. SnellingCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1867
- Letcher v. StagnerCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1866
3Cited by2 opinions
- Allen's Sons v. Dillingham's AssigneeCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1898
- Farmers' and Merchants' Bank v. BlueCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1930