Legal Opinion

Ives v. Ives

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided October 1, 1928PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Hast, C. J.,

(after stating the facts). This suit is biased upon § 70 of Crawford & Mioses’ Digest, which gives the executor or administrator of any fraudulent grantor, who, by deed, shall have conveyed an interest in land with intent to defraud his creditors in the collection of their just demands, the right to apply to a court of chancery to have the same set aside for the use and benefit of the heirs-at-law of the fraudulent grantor. This statute has been construed to change the common law to the extent of allowing the fraudulent, deed to be set aside for the benefit of the heirs-at-law of…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Wilks v. VaughanSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1904
  2. Home Life & Accident Co. v. SchichtlSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1926
  3. Moore v. WaldsteinSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1905
  4. Johnson v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1912
  5. Davis v. DavisSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1920

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

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Finnegan v. LafontaineSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1937
  2. Rush v. SmithSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1965

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

Powered by the Exa API