Aiken v. Peck
Supreme Court of Vermont
This was an action to recover the penalty given by statute, — Rev. St., chap. 95, sec. 20, — for receiving and justifying a fraudulent conveyance of property.
Read the full summary
This was an action to recover the penalty given by statute, — Rev. St., chap. 95, sec. 20, — for receiving and justifying a fraudulent conveyance of property. The plaintiffs, who sued as well for themselves, as for the county of Addison, alleged in their declaration, that on the eighteenth day of February, 1845, one Harvey Briggs was indebted to them upon a promissory note, previously executed, and also upon other accounts, and was also largely indebted to other persons, and that, upon the same day, at Cornwall in the county of Addison, the said Briggs, in order to defraud the plaintiffs of…
1Opinion of the Court
*260The opinion of the court was delivered by
Hall, J.
The first question to be considered is, whether the record of the trustee proceeding was properly excluded by the county court.
It is not claimed in behalf of the defendant, that the whole subject matter of this suit, — the right of the plaintiffs to recover the penalty, —has been inquired into and passed upon in the former suit, — but that a question necessarily arising in this case, and which must be determined in favor of the plaintiffs, in order to entitle them to recover, viz., the question, whether the sale from Briggs to the defendant…
2Cited by13 opinions
- Russell v. PlaceSupreme Court of the United States · 1877
- W.C. Motor Co. v. TalleyDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois · 2014
- Turner v. BegleyCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1931
- Marble Savings Bank v. WilliamsWashington Supreme Court · 1901
- Priest v. Foster & JaquithSupreme Court of Vermont · 1897
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.