Hurd v. Silsby
Superior Court of New Hampshire
FoReign attachment. It appeared, from the disclosure of the trustees, that on the 29th September, 1838, Silsby assigned, by indenture, all his lands and tenements, goods and chattels, The indenture purported to be an instrument between the assignor of the first part; the assignees of the second ; “ and the creditors of said Silsby who have executed these presents, of the third part.”
Read the full summary
FoReign attachment. It appeared, from the disclosure of the trustees, that on the 29th September, 1838, Silsby assigned, by indenture, all his lands and tenements, goods and chattels, The indenture purported to be an instrument between the assignor of the first part; the assignees of the second ; “ and the creditors of said Silsby who have executed these presents, of the third part.” It provided that the assignees should sell and convert all the property into money, and, after deducting costs and charges, should apply the proceeds collected to pay the several creditors of Silsby, according to…
1Opinion of the Court
Parker, G. J.
Prior to the statute of July 5, 1834, for the equal distribution of property assigned for the benefit of creditors, this assignment would have been valid to the extent of the claims of the trustees, if any, and of the creditors who had become parties to it prior to the service of the plaintiffs’ writ. By the provisions of that act, no assignment made for the benefit of creditors shall be valid, except the same shall provide for an equal distribution of all real, mixed or personal estate, among the several creditors of the person making such assignment, in equal proportion,…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Leeds v. SaywardSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1833
3Cited by2 opinions
- Corning v. RecordsSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1898
- Spinney v. Portsmouth Hosiery Co.Superior Court of New Hampshire · 1852