Britton v. Boyer
Nebraska Supreme Court
Error to the district court for Red Willow county. Tried below before Cochran, J. The garnishment proceeding was the only method of appropriating the surplus value of the goods in possession of the mortgagees. [Burnham v'. Doolittle, 14 Neb., 214; Carte v. Fenstermaher, 14 O. S., 457); and it enabled testimony to be introduced tending to show fraud, which in a mere attachment would not have been admissible. Conduct of parties may be shown, to establish fraudulent intent.
Read the full summary
Error to the district court for Red Willow county. Tried below before Cochran, J. The garnishment proceeding was the only method of appropriating the surplus value of the goods in possession of the mortgagees. [Burnham v'. Doolittle, 14 Neb., 214; Carte v. Fenstermaher, 14 O. S., 457); and it enabled testimony to be introduced tending to show fraud, which in a mere attachment would not have been admissible. Conduct of parties may be shown, to establish fraudulent intent. (Wait, Fraud. Conv., pp. 8-10; Waples on Attach- . ment, 57, 58; Weiller v. Sehreiber, 63 How. Pr. [N. Y.], 481.)…
1Opinion of the Court
Reese, Ch. J.
This is a proceeding in error to the district court of Red Willow county. On the 25th day of September, 1887, *524plaintiffs filed their petition in the district court for the recovery of the sum of $898.30, with interest thereon. At the time of filing the petition, an affidavit for attachment was filed, alleging as the ground therefor that “the defendants have assigned, removed, and disposed of a part of their property with intent to defraud their creditors, and are about to assign and dispose of their property with intention to defraud their creditors, and are about to convert…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Allis v. JonesU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Nebraska · 1891
- Trebilcock v. Big Missouri Mining Co.South Dakota Supreme Court · 1896
- Bank of Plymouth v. RitcheyNebraska Supreme Court · 1927
- Smith v. BoyerNebraska Supreme Court · 1892
- Staab v. HerschNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1884