Legal Opinion

Haverhill Shoe Novelty Co. v. Leader Shoe Co.

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

Decided June 27, 1935PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the CourtAllen, C. J.

The- attempted common-law assignment ran to three assignees of whom two were non-residents. By statute (Laws 1933, c. 9), “No instrument by which title to ... property is conveyed . .. to an assignee ... for the benefit of the creditors of the assignor shall be valid to transfer the title of the assignor therein unless such assignee ... is a resident of this state, .... ”

The language is most precise to express the inefficacy of the instrur ment to divest the assignor of the title to its property sought thereby to be transferred to non-resident assignees. As to them, the assignor retained its…

2Cited by1 opinion

  1. Pinkston v. CarterDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1959

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API