Legal Opinion · Dissent

Home Life & Accident Co. v. Schichtl

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided November 8, 1926Published

1DissentHart, J.

Judge Smith and I dissent in this case because we believe that, when the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to appellee, we have the case of an insolvent debtor, or one whose embarrassment resulted in insolvenc3r, making' a- voluntar3r conveyance of a"part of his lands to his wife, which prevented appellant from collecting its debt.

Under our former decisions, such disposition is conclusively fraudulent as against existing creditors; and a mortgagee whose debt is due at the time of the voluntary conve3rance is an existing creditor. In Wilks v. Vaughan, 73 Ark. 175, Chief Justice…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Wilks v. VaughanSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1904
  2. Brady v. IrbySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1912
  3. Harris v. SmithSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1918
  4. Papan v. NahaySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1913
  5. Davis v. CramerSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1918

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API