Cox v. Vise
Supreme Court of Arkansas
APPEAL from Scott Circuit Court. R. B. Rutherford, Judge. 1. The assignment was strictly in conformity with, law. There is no taint of constructive fraud in. the terms, and provisions of the deed, and the burden was on defendant to show actual fraud on the part of Hamilton. ■participated 'in by plaintiff, Review the evidence and contend the circumstances do not show fraud. The conversation with Childs, after the assignment was not admisiible, to affect plaintiff’s title.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from Scott Circuit Court. R. B. Rutherford, Judge. 1. The assignment was strictly in conformity with, law. There is no taint of constructive fraud in. the terms, and provisions of the deed, and the burden was on defendant to show actual fraud on the part of Hamilton. ■participated 'in by plaintiff, Review the evidence and contend the circumstances do not show fraud. The conversation with Childs, after the assignment was not admisiible, to affect plaintiff’s title. Fraud must be proved, and is never presumed. See 85 N. Y, 464; 40 Id., 226 ; 39 Id., 200. The question of fraud was…
1Opinion of the CourtBattle, J.
J. M. Hamilton, being the owner of a stock of goods and much involved in debt, assigned and transferred them and certain book accounts to G. Cox for •the benefit of his creditors. This was on the 6th of August, 1884. On the 8th of tbe same month, creditors of Hamilton caused the goods to be attached. The ground ■of attachment was, Hamilton had disposed of his property with the fraudulent intent to cheat, hinder and delay his creditors. After the goods were attached, this action was institued by the assignee against the officer, C. M. Vise, who had seized them, to recover possession thereof.
In…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Clements v. MooreSupreme Court of the United States · 1868
- Place v. . MinsterNew York Court of Appeals · 1875
- Cuyler v. . McCartneyNew York Court of Appeals · 1869
- Claytor v. AnthonySupreme Court of Virginia · 1828
- Miner v. PhillipsIllinois Supreme Court · 1866
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Gill v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1894
- W. D. Stroud v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1925
- St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co. v. DeshongSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1897
- McKee v. HendricksSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1924
- Johnson v. LagowTexas Commission of Appeals · 1929
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.