Rowland v. Coleman
Supreme Court of Georgia
Assignment. Equity pleading. Before Judge Johnson. Muscogee Superior Court. May Term, 1871. Rowland, by bill, sought to set aside an assignment made by Coleman and wife to Ransom & Company, averring that said assignment was “made reserving a certain surplus to Coleman, and with the intent to delay and defraud ” Rowland — said Ransom & Company knowing such was the object thereof.
Read the full summary
Assignment. Equity pleading. Before Judge Johnson. Muscogee Superior Court. May Term, 1871. Rowland, by bill, sought to set aside an assignment made by Coleman and wife to Ransom & Company, averring that said assignment was “made reserving a certain surplus to Coleman, and with the intent to delay and defraud ” Rowland — said Ransom & Company knowing such was the object thereof. He averred that this assignment was made pending his suit against Coleman, in which he subsequently had a judgment which is unpaid. The bill was dismissed upon demurrer, and that is assigned as error.
1Opinion of the Court
McCay, Judge.
Our Act of 1865, 1866, authorizes a debtor in failing circumstances to prefer one creditor to another, in an assignment; and so this Court decided in the case of Embry vs. Fishcheser, 38 Georgia Reports, 245. And if this be done, bona fide, it does not make the assignment void, if there be more assigned than will pay the debt. The fact that there may be a surplus in the hands of the assignee, after paying the debt, is not of itself sufficient to make the assignment fraudulent, if the assignment be bona fide: 27 Georgia Reports, 385; 18 Georgia Reports, 668; 7 Georgia Reports,…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Booth v. Atlanta Clearing-House Ass'nSupreme Court of Georgia · 1909
- Leasure v. ForquerOregon Supreme Court · 1895
- Wooldridge v. IrvingUnited States Circuit Court · 1884