Stix v. Chaytor
Supreme Court of Arkansas
APPEAL from Little River Circuit Court in chancery. Rufus D. Hearn, Judge. In 1888, Stix, Krause & Co. brought suit against Chaytor & Dunn, formerly partners, and certain others, to set aside conveyances alleged to be fraudulent.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from Little River Circuit Court in chancery. Rufus D. Hearn, Judge. In 1888, Stix, Krause & Co. brought suit against Chaytor & Dunn, formerly partners, and certain others, to set aside conveyances alleged to be fraudulent. The complaint alleged that in 1886 plaintiffs recovered judgment against ■Chaytor & Dunn, upon which execution was issued in 1888 and returned no property found; that defendant Chaytor, or ■Chaytor & Dunn, while insolvent, had made three several •conveyances without consideration and with intent to defraud. (1) It was charged that Chaytor, with assets of the firm,…
1Opinion of the CourtMansfield, J.
1. when gift not fraudulent. 1. There is no error in the decree ap- - . - .. . . * , pealed from, so far as it relates to the town lot. The evidence fails to show that the defendant R. S. Chaytor or the firm of Chaytor & Dunn were indebted to any one at the time that property was conveyed to Mrs. Chaytor. And the mortgage upon it was executed several years prior to the date of the plaintiffs’ judgment, and was given to secure the payment of an undisputed and subsisting debt. The right of Snodgrass to a foreclosure was therefore clear.
2. When vendor's possession fraudulent. 2. But on the facts…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Haleys v. WilliamsSupreme Court of Virginia · 1829
- M'Kee v. GilchristSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1834
3Cited by12 opinions
- Brady v. IrbySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1912
- Papan v. NahaySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1913
- In re HawksDistrict Court, D. Kansas · 1913
- Doster v. Manistee National BankSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1900
- Clark v. Bank of BentonvilleSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1992
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.