Bickham v. Lake
District Court, N.D. Mississippi
At Law. Action by Bickham & Moore against Lake & Austin, in which an attachment was levied upon defendants’ property. Among the grounds of attachment alleged in the affidavit was the following: “That they [defendants] have assigned or disposed of, or are about to assign or dispose of, their property or rights in action, or some part thereof, with intent to defraud their creditors.”
Read the full summary
At Law. Action by Bickham & Moore against Lake & Austin, in which an attachment was levied upon defendants’ property. Among the grounds of attachment alleged in the affidavit was the following: “That they [defendants] have assigned or disposed of, or are about to assign or dispose of, their property or rights in action, or some part thereof, with intent to defraud their creditors.” Defendants did in fact make an assignment of their property shortly after the issuance of the attachment. The deed of assignment was read to the jury, and the question now arises on plaintiffs’ motion to instruct…
1Opinion of the Court
Hill, District Judge.
The questions now presented for decision arise upon plaintiffs ’ motion asking the court to instruct the jury that the deed of assignment read to the jury is fraudulent in law, and, from the proof, fraudulent in fact:
For the reason that the assignment contains the following provision:
“For the proper execution oí this trust, said second party may also employ and retain competent attorneys to defend and protect the trust created herein, and this assignment, if the same be assailed, and pay them a just and reasonable compensation for their services.”
This provision, it is…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Mattison v. JuddMississippi Supreme Court · 1881
- Mayer v. ShieldsMississippi Supreme Court · 1881