Bank of Little Rock v. Frank
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Pulaski Chancery Court. David W. Carrodb, Chancellor. 1. There is no proof that the preferences of Louis and Charles Rudolph were simulated, fictitious, or fraudulent. On the contrary, all the evidence shows their debts were genuine and bona fide, — due for money borrowed to pay creditors. 2. Nor is there any proof that the assignment was made to cheat, hinder, or defraud creditors. The deed is in form, and violates no provision of the assignment law.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Pulaski Chancery Court. David W. Carrodb, Chancellor. 1. There is no proof that the preferences of Louis and Charles Rudolph were simulated, fictitious, or fraudulent. On the contrary, all the evidence shows their debts were genuine and bona fide, — due for money borrowed to pay creditors. 2. Nor is there any proof that the assignment was made to cheat, hinder, or defraud creditors. The deed is in form, and violates no provision of the assignment law. The proof in relation to the statements of Rudolph to the commercial agencies was irrelevant and incompetent. It might have been…
1Opinion of the CourtBattbE, J.
On the 22d of December, 1893, Joseph Rudolph, a merchant, assigned certain property to Joseph Griffith for the benefit of his creditors, directing that certain persons to whom he was indebted should be first paid. The deed evidencing- the assignment was, on the same day, filed in the office of the clerk of the Pulaski chancery court; and immediately thereafter the Bank of Bittle Rock, one of the preferred creditors, filed in said court a complaint, asking- for tbe appointment of a receiver to take possession of the property assigned and administer the trust created by the deed of assignment…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Peters v. BainSupreme Court of the United States · 1890
- Crawford v. NealSupreme Court of the United States · 1892
- Shultz v. . HoaglandNew York Court of Appeals · 1881
- Denny v. BennettSupreme Court of the United States · 1888
- Darling v. Rogers & SagoryCourt for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors · 1839
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Biddle v. BiddleSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1944
- In re HawksDistrict Court, D. Kansas · 1913
- DuFresne v. PaulSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1920
- Russell v. BrooksSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1909
- Foster v. McAlesterCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1902
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.