Cross v. Carstens
Ohio Supreme Court
Error to tbe Circuit Court of Hamilton county. Tbe controversy arose on tbe application of the defendants in error, mortgagees, to the probate court of Hamilton county, for an order upon the plaintiff in error, trustee for creditors, requiring him to pay their mortgage claims from funds in his hands, arising from sale of property covered by the mortgages, the assets being insufficient to pay all creditors in full.
Read the full summary
Error to tbe Circuit Court of Hamilton county. Tbe controversy arose on tbe application of the defendants in error, mortgagees, to the probate court of Hamilton county, for an order upon the plaintiff in error, trustee for creditors, requiring him to pay their mortgage claims from funds in his hands, arising from sale of property covered by the mortgages, the assets being insufficient to pay all creditors in full. From the order made by the court requiring payment of the mortgage claims, as preferences, the trustee appealed to the court of common pleas, where a like order was made. A bill of…
1Opinion of the CourtSpear, C. J.
Several questions are raised by the plaintiff in error.
I. He insists that the preferential mortgages are within the operation of section 6343, of the Revised Statutes, and inure to the equal benefit of all creditors.
That section, so far as it is involved in this case, is as follows: “All assignments in trust to a trustee or trustees, made in contemplation of insolvency, with the intent to prefer one or more creditors, shall inure to the equal benefit of all creditors in proportion to the amount of their respective claims.”
It is contended “ that when a debtor recognizes his insolvency and…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Dickson v. L. & S. RawsonOhio Supreme Court · 1855
- Porter v. DementIllinois Supreme Court · 1864
- Lessee of Nash v. AthertonOhio Supreme Court · 1840
- Reiff v. EshlemanCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1879