M. Noyes & Co. v. Hickok
Supreme Court of Vermont
Assignments, when void under the act of 1843, and when considered as partial only. Extent of trustee’s right to offset claims in his favor. Trustee Process.
Read the full summary
Assignments, when void under the act of 1843, and when considered as partial only. Extent of trustee’s right to offset claims in his favor. Trustee Process. The trustee disclosed, that on the 29th of July, 1852, the principal defendant assigned to him certain property for the purpose of securing the payment of several debts, due from the principal defendant, on some of which, the trustee himself was holden, and on the remainder of which other persons were liable, as his sureties. The disclosure was voluminous; and as all the facts disclosed, upon which the case was decided by the supreme…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Isham, J.
The case of Mussey v. Noyes et al., 26 Vt. 462, seems to dispose of the principal question involved in this case. It was there held, that a partial assignment by a debtor of his property for the payment of his debts, though made to one in trust, was not a general assignment within the act of 1843, rendering all general assignments void. To render a transfer void under the statute as a general assignment, it must be of all the debtor’s property and in trustfor the benefit of creditors. Treating those questions as having been determined, we are…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Mussey v. NoyesSupreme Court of Vermont · 1854
- Goddard v. HapgoodSupreme Court of Vermont · 1853
- Strong & Buck v. MitchellSupreme Court of Vermont · 1847
3Cited by3 opinions
- Throckmorton v. HoltSupreme Court of the United States · 1901
- Therasson v. HickokSupreme Court of Vermont · 1865
- Passumpsic Bank v. StrongSupreme Court of Vermont · 1869