Mills v. Argall
New York Court of Chancery
This was an appeal from á decision of the vice chancellor of the first circuit, denying an application to dissolve an injunction. The complainants wefe creditors of a special copartnership in which D. C. Árgall vvás the abtive ánd W. Argall the special or dormant partner.
Read the full summary
This was an appeal from á decision of the vice chancellor of the first circuit, denying an application to dissolve an injunction. The complainants wefe creditors of a special copartnership in which D. C. Árgall vvás the abtive ánd W. Argall the special or dormant partner. The copartnership being insolvent, and suits being brought against the acting partner, by the complainants and others, he made an assignment to the defendant G. A. Curtis, one bf the firm of W. & G. Curtis, of all the copartnership propérty and effects for the benefit of the creditors. This assignment, however, was void ¿s…
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellor.
The first assignment in this case, though void as against creditors who chose to disaffirm it, was undoubtedly valid as between the assignor and assignee, in favor of those creditors who were provided for therein and who should think proper to insist upon their rights against the assignee, who had assumed a trust for their benefit. If these complainants, therefore, were claiming under the first assignment, the assignee might be estopped from denying the validity thereof, except so far as it had been impeached or disaffirmed by other creditors; and might be compelled to account…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Hone v. WoolseyNew York Court of Chancery · 1834
3Cited by11 opinions
- Clapp v. LaceySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1868
- White v. . HackettNew York Court of Appeals · 1859
- Powers v. GraydonThe Superior Court of New York City · 1863
- Robinson v. McIntoshNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1854
- Dunning's AppealSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1863
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.