Clayton v. Clark
Supreme Court of Kansas
Error from Graham district court; Charles W. Smith, judge. STATEMENT. This was an attachment proceeding on a claim before it was due. The claim consists of two promissory notes, one of which is dated February 24, 1906, for $70, and became due .one year after date ; the other is dated March 1, 190.6, for $43.50, and also matured one year after date. The defendants in error are the makers of the notes, and the plaintiff in error the owner and holder thereof.
Read the full summary
Error from Graham district court; Charles W. Smith, judge. STATEMENT. This was an attachment proceeding on a claim before it was due. The claim consists of two promissory notes, one of which is dated February 24, 1906, for $70, and became due .one year after date ; the other is dated March 1, 190.6, for $43.50, and also matured one year after date. The defendants in error are the makers of the notes, and the plaintiff in error the owner and holder thereof. The defendants in error-are tenants on the farm of the plaintiff in error. The notes are unsecured, and were not given in payment of rent.…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Graves, J.:
The district court has drawn a distinction between an act done with intent to defraud creditors and the same act when done merely with intent to hinder and delay creditors in the collection of their claims which we do not think applicable in this case.
The- affidavit for attachment charges -that the acts complained of on the part of the defendants were done “for the 'purpose and with the fraudulent intent to defraud their creditors.” No charge is made, unless it is contained in these words, that they were done with the intent to “hinder” and…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Edgell v. SmithWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1901
- Weber v. MickIllinois Supreme Court · 1890
- McBryan v. TrowbridgeMichigan Supreme Court · 1901
- Noyes, Norman & Co. v. CunninghamMissouri Court of Appeals · 1892
- Petrovitzky v. BrighamUtah Supreme Court · 1897
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Puget Sound Pulp & Timber Co. v. Clear Lake Cedar Corp.Washington Supreme Court · 1942