Wilcox v. Kellogg
Ohio Supreme Court
This is a bill in chancery, from the county of Hamilton. The bill states that, at the February term of the court of common pleas, 1837, the complainants recovered a judgment, at law, against Charles F. Kellogg and David G-. Williams, partners in trade, under the firm of Kellogg & Williams, for the sum of $872.57, besides costs of suit, on a promissory note made by said Kellogg & Williams, due September 4, a. d. 1836; . and also for goods sold by the complainants to said…
Read the full summary
This is a bill in chancery, from the county of Hamilton. The bill states that, at the February term of the court of common pleas, 1837, the complainants recovered a judgment, at law, against Charles F. Kellogg and David G-. Williams, partners in trade, under the firm of Kellogg & Williams, for the sum of $872.57, besides costs of suit, on a promissory note made by said Kellogg & Williams, due September 4, a. d. 1836; . and also for goods sold by the complainants to said Kellogg & Williams. That an execution issued upon said judgment, and was returned by the sheriff, no goods, chattels, lands,…
1Opinion of the CourtWood, J.
It is contended by the complainants, that the whole proofs disclose a fraudulent attempt to place this property beyond the reach of creditors. If so, the complainants arc entitled to relief. The law, says Mr. Justice Wilmot, breaks through all the forms with which fraud may surround itself, and exposes it, odious and hateful, to the public gaze. *At law, however, it has become a truism, that fraud must be proved. In equity, it is sometimes said, the rule is not so strict, but it is nevertheless certain that the evidence of facts and circumstances must be such that it can reasonably be…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Citizens National Bank v. WehrleOhio Circuit Courts · 1897