Eldredge Brewing Co. v. Cocheco Bottling Co.
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Assumpsit. The defendants assigned all their assets including stock in trade, book accounts, tools and machinery to one O’Malley for the benefit of all their creditors. After he had accepted the trust and taken possession of the property, the plaintiffs attached it as the defendants’ property. The court permitted the assignee to intervene in this suit and ask for an order dissolving the attachment.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit. The defendants assigned all their assets including stock in trade, book accounts, tools and machinery to one O’Malley for the benefit of all their creditors. After he had accepted the trust and taken possession of the property, the plaintiffs attached it as the defendants’ property. The court permitted the assignee to intervene in this suit and ask for an order dissolving the attachment. Transferred by Allen, J., without a ruling from the January term, 1918, of the superior court.
1Opinion of the CourtYoung, J.
The plaintiffs are creditors of the defendants and they contend that the assignment is void as to them because of Laws 1909, c. 69, s. 1. While an assignment like the one in question may be a sale for some purposes (Kenefick v. Perry, 61 N. H. 362; McGreenery v. Murphy, 76 N. H. 338; Clough v. Glines, 77 N. H. 408; Goodrich v. Woodsome, 78 N. H. 488) it is not a sale within the ordinary meaning of that term. This tends to the conclusion that such transactions are not void under the provisions of s. 1. The fact such a transaction tends rather to prevent than to promote 'the evil at which that…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- McGreenery v. MurphySupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1912
- Kenefick v. PerrySupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1881
- Clough v. Glines & Stevens Co.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1914
- Goodrich v. WoodsomeSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1917
3Cited by2 opinions
- Bown v. FrankOregon Supreme Court · 1927
- Liberman v. LowOregon Supreme Court · 1934