Keightley v. Walls

The appellant sued Walls and Eckels, alleging in his complaint that he held, by indorsement, a note against Walls for $1552 80, then due and unpaid; that Walls was insolvent; and that to defraud, hinder, and delay his creditors, Walls had combined with Eckels, and, without consideration, had in December, 1863, assigned and trans*206ferred to the latter all his notes and accounts, amounting to $7500, and, amongst others, a note against the plaintiff, which Eckels still held. Judgment was prayed against Walls for the amount of the first mentioned note; that the assignment of the note against the…