White v. Hill
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Contract, brought for the benefit of Charles M. Kimball, upon an account annexed, to recover for work done. Trial in the Superior Court, before Bacon; J., who allowed a bill of exceptions, in substance as follows.
Read the full summary
Contract, brought for the benefit of Charles M. Kimball, upon an account annexed, to recover for work done. Trial in the Superior Court, before Bacon; J., who allowed a bill of exceptions, in substance as follows. The defendant by his answer admitted the debt, but alleged that White, on April 18, 1886, had filed his petition in the Court of Insolvency, and that assignees to whom his estate was duly assigned claimed and demanded payment of the debt, and prayed that Kimball and the assignees might be required to interplead in the action. Kimball appeared and claimed the amount of the debt by…
1Opinion of the CourtMorton, C. J.
The assignment from White to Kimball was voidable by the assignees of White, subsequently chosen in the insolvency proceedings instituted by him. But the question in this case is, whether, upon such avoidance by the assignees, Kim-ball has the right to retain enough of the property assigned to reimburse him for the expenses incurred, by him in carrying out the purposes of the assignment.
It was held in Bartlett v. Bramhall, 3 Gray, 257, that, where a debtor assigned all his property for the benefit of his creditors *399by an assignment which was voidable by creditors, and after-wards was declared…
2Cited by7 opinions
- Shannon v. Shepard Manufacturing Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1918
- Armstrong v. Lone Star Refining Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1927
- Feder v. GoetzCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1920
- Titlow v. MacPhailCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1917
- In re WilliamsDistrict Court, N.D. Ohio · 1917
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.