Wilhelm v. Byles
Michigan Supreme Court
Appeal from Kalamazoo. (Mills, J.) Bill to enforce performance of trust by assignees of insolvent debtors. Complainants appeal. The facts are stated in the opinion. The assignees under a common-law assignment have no power to continue the business of the assignors. This doctrine is so well established that it is hardly necessary to cite authorities to support it.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Kalamazoo. (Mills, J.) Bill to enforce performance of trust by assignees of insolvent debtors. Complainants appeal. The facts are stated in the opinion. The assignees under a common-law assignment have no power to continue the business of the assignors. This doctrine is so well established that it is hardly necessary to cite authorities to support it. The question has been before the courts in a variety of ways, perhaps most frequently in cases where the assignment itself has given the assignees power to continue the business and to sell on credit, etc.; but the courts have held,…
1Opinion of the CourtChamplin, J.
Kellogg, Sawyer & Go. were engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling lumber. They owned a saw-mill, tram-way, a logging railway, and the necessary plant and appliances for sawing logs. They also held, under land contracts, fifty or sixty millions feet of pine stand, ing timber, for which they owed upwards of $130,000.
Being embarrassed, and unable to meet their commercial paper and other obligations, the firm, on the ninth day of November, 1883, made a common-law assignment of all their property for the benefit of their creditors.
In' making the assignment the parties observed the…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Quimby v. UhlMichigan Supreme Court · 1902
- Charles Lippincott & Co. v. RichUtah Supreme Court · 1899
- F. H. Roberts Co. v. Hopkins, Inc.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1937
- Patrick & Co. v. McDonnellMontana Supreme Court · 1921
- Byles v. RoweMichigan Supreme Court · 1887