Flanigan v. Lampman
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Wayne Circuit, where Lampman sued Flanigan in replevin. To show title to the property replevied, the plaintiff produced in evidence a general assignment for the benefit of creditors, and gave evidence on the subject of possession of the chattels mentioned in said assignment, by virtue thereof; aBd rested.
Read the full summary
Error to Wayne Circuit, where Lampman sued Flanigan in replevin. To show title to the property replevied, the plaintiff produced in evidence a general assignment for the benefit of creditors, and gave evidence on the subject of possession of the chattels mentioned in said assignment, by virtue thereof; aBd rested. The defendant justified as sheriff, under a writ of fieri facias, against the assignors in said assignment, Frost, Lane & Co., by virtue of which he had seized the property iu question, after the day of the date of such assignment; and he produced and offered evidence tending to…
1Opinion of the Court
Chbistiancy J.:
We think the question put to the witness Whittemore, on the part of the defendant below, was erroneously overruled.
Assignments, ostensibly for -the benefit of creditors, are so frequently resorted to by embarrassed debtors for their own benefit, as a convenient method of securing to themselves the property which justly belongs to their creditors, that, to avoid injustice, the most liberal rules should prevail for the admission of any evidence which may tend to prove the fraud. Possession of the assigned property *60by the assignor, or Ms control over it, after the assignment* has…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Hairgrove v. MillingtonSupreme Court of Kansas · 1871
- Anglo-American Packing & Provision Co. v. BaierAppellate Court of Illinois · 1886
- Parsell v. PattersonMichigan Supreme Court · 1882
- Carew v. MathewsMichigan Supreme Court · 1882
- Groff v. CooperSuperior Court of Delaware · 1880
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.