Lukins v. Aird
Supreme Court of the United States
Appeal (submitted) from the District Court of the United States for Western Arkansas. Aird being indebted, and having subsequently failed, either sold, or conveyed under a pretence of a sale, certain town lots, at Fort Smith, Arkansas, which he owned, and which had cost him, it seemed, $1900, to one Spring.
Read the full summary
Appeal (submitted) from the District Court of the United States for Western Arkansas. Aird being indebted, and having subsequently failed, either sold, or conveyed under a pretence of a sale, certain town lots, at Fort Smith, Arkansas, which he owned, and which had cost him, it seemed, $1900, to one Spring. Spring paid him $1200 in money; agreeing that Aird should have the use of two of the lots for one year free of rent, and with a privilege, so long as Spring did not desire to make any use of them himself, or to sell them, of renting them at $100 a year — the money paid being made less on…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Davis
It is not important to inquire, whether, as a matter of fact, the defendants had a purpose to defraud the creditors of Aird, for the fraud in this case is an inference of law, on which the court is as much bound to pronounce the conveyances in question void as to creditors, as if the fraudulent intent were directly proved. There is no necessity of any general discussion of the provisions of the statutes of Elizabeth, concerning fraudulent and voluntar}' conveyances, as this suit is within narrow limits, and the principle on which we rest our decision too well settled for controversy. The law…
2Cited by48 opinions
- Benedict v. RatnerSupreme Court of the United States · 1925
- Dent v. FergusonSupreme Court of the United States · 1889
- Beidler v. CraneIllinois Supreme Court · 1890
- Levy & Co. v. WilliamsSupreme Court of Alabama · 1885
- New v. SailorsIndiana Supreme Court · 1888
43 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.