Lawrence v. Neff
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the District Court of the Fourteenth Judicial District, Placer County. C. P- Stanford, at the time he executed the instrument referred to in the opinion (August, 1869), was carrying on the Coldstream Sawmill, in Placer County. The plaintiffs to whom, and the other persons for whose benefit also, he made the conveyance, were his employes.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the District Court of the Fourteenth Judicial District, Placer County. C. P- Stanford, at the time he executed the instrument referred to in the opinion (August, 1869), was carrying on the Coldstream Sawmill, in Placer County. The plaintiffs to whom, and the other persons for whose benefit also, he made the conveyance, were his employes. Among his other creditors was “ The Contract and Finance Company,” which, about the time of the transfer above referred to, commenced a suit against him, in the Sixth District Court for Sacramento County, for thirty-one thousand five hundred and…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court, Crockett, J.:'
The only question in this case is whether the instrument from C. P. Stanford to the plaintiffs is void under section thirty-nine of the Act of May 4th, 1852, for the relief of insolvent debtors and protection of creditors. (Stats. 1852, p. 69.)
It appears that Stanford, being in insolvent circumstances and largely indebted to about one hundred laborers, includq e ing the plaintiffs, proposed to turn over to them certain personal property in satisfaction of, or as security for, their several demands; that, thereupon, the laborers held a meeting, acceded to the…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Dana v. StanfordsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1858
3Cited by11 opinions
- Jarvis v. WebberCalifornia Supreme Court · 1925
- Gage v. ChesebroWisconsin Supreme Court · 1880
- Saurderson v. BroadwellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
- Sabichi v. ChaseCalifornia Supreme Court · 1895
- Lumbert v. WoodardIndiana Supreme Court · 1896
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.