Schofield v. American Valley Co.
New Mexico Supreme Court
Error, from a judgment for defendant, to the Fifth Judicial District Court, Socorro County. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. There was sufficient evidence to go to the jury as to the ground “that defendant was about to remove its property, and effects out of this territory.”
Read the full summary
Error, from a judgment for defendant, to the Fifth Judicial District Court, Socorro County. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. There was sufficient evidence to go to the jury as to the ground “that defendant was about to remove its property, and effects out of this territory.” The court below erred in ruling that a removal of all of defendant’s property, if done in the ordinary course of business and without intent to defraud, hinder or delay the creditor, did not come within the statute. Kearney Code 39, Sept. 22, 1846; Comp. Laws 1865, 208, see. 1, sub. div. 3; Id., p. 742;…
1Opinion of the Court
MILLS, O. I.-
On January the 20th, 1894, the plaintiff as receiver of the Albuquerque National Bank, filed in the district court for the county of Socorro, a declaration in assumpsit, and on the sixth of the following March filed an affidavit for attachment, claiming that the defendants owed the bank of which he was receiver the sum of $17,580 on account of three promissory notes.
The grounds for the attachment, as set out in the affidavit, were that the American Valley Company “has fraudulently concealed and disposed of its property and effects so as to defraud, hinder and delay its creditors;…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Turpin v. CoatesNebraska Supreme Court · 1882
- William Watson & Co. v. SullivanOhio Supreme Court · 1855
- Adams County Bank v. MorganNebraska Supreme Court · 1889
- Bebb v. PrestonSupreme Court of Iowa · 1855
- Sleeper v. KellyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1863
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.