Mamlock v. White
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the Seventeenth Judicial District. The facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion. Appellant claimed that there was error in a number of the instructions given by the Court, and particularly in the fourth instruction, a copy of which is as follows.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Seventeenth Judicial District. The facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion. Appellant claimed that there was error in a number of the instructions given by the Court, and particularly in the fourth instruction, a copy of which is as follows. “A party has the right to sell all or any portion of his stock in trade to pay debts, and may pay any particular debt in preference to another; but proof that the proceeds of such sale have been applied to the payment of debts does not prove the good faith of the sale, for the sale may nevertheless be fraudulent as to the creditors…
1Opinion of the CourtNorton, J.
This is an action to recover specific personal property which the plaintiff claims to have purchased of one A. B. Ephraim. The defendant claims title to the property by virtue of a seizure as Sheriff, under certain attachments issued against said Ephraim and another, and justifies the seizure by averring that the transfer by Ephraim to the plaintiff was made for the purpose of defrauding *600the creditors of Ephraim, and therefore void. The judgment was for the defendant, from which the plaintiff appeals.
I. It is objected that the defendant failed to establish his justification in not proving the…
2Cited by8 opinions
- Flood v. McClureIdaho Supreme Court · 1893
- Burlington National Bank v. BeardSupreme Court of Kansas · 1895
- Corson v. BersonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
- Sexey v. AdkinsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1867
- Shields v. RuddyIdaho Supreme Court · 1891
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.