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,…
1DissentSherwood, J.
Kellogg, Sawyer & Co., the assignors of defendants Byles & Phelps, on the ninth day of November, 1883, made a common-law assignment-of their property to the latter, for the benefit of all their creditors. In doing so, however, they proceeded according to the provisions of the act of May 13, 1879 (How. Stat. p. 2137).
*570Their indebtedness at the time the assignment was made was about $326,000, and an additional contingent indebtedness, or rather liability, of about $106,000.
The assets consisted of real estate, standing pine timber, a steam saw-mill, lumber and lath, a tram-road and railroad,…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Williams v. BankheadSupreme Court of the United States · 1874
- Wakeman v. GroverNew York Court of Chancery · 1832
- Hallett & Davis v. HallettNew York Court of Chancery · 1829
- Egberts v. WoodNew York Court of Chancery · 1831
- Crocker v. HigginsSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1829
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.