Moore, Bremaker & Co. v. Stege & Reiling
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
Case 7 — PETITION EQUITY APPEAL PROM HARDIN CIRCUIT COURT. 1. The first attachment was void, because of collusion, and as there is no proof sufficient to show that the deed of assignment was made with intent to defraud, it passed the title to the debtor’s property and the second attachment should have been discharged.
Read the full summary
Case 7 — PETITION EQUITY APPEAL PROM HARDIN CIRCUIT COURT. 1. The first attachment was void, because of collusion, and as there is no proof sufficient to show that the deed of assignment was made with intent to defraud, it passed the title to the debtor’s property and the second attachment should have been discharged. (General Statutes, chap. 44, art. 1, sec. 1; Idem,., art. 2, sec. 1.) '2. If the deed is void, it should have been attacked within six months. 4. It is the intention of the debtor, in making a deed of assignment for the benefit of creditors, that determines whether the deed is…
1Opinion of the CourtChief Justice Holt
delivered the opimios oj tub court.
November 16, 1887, Stege & Keiling sued "W\ C. Hawkins on ten notes for one hundred dollars each, only four of which were then due, however, and sued out an attachment against his property, upon the grounds that1 he had not enough subject to execution to pay their debt or had disposed of his property for the purpose of defrauding or delaying his creditors, or was about to do so.
In a few hours after this was done, he made a general assignment of his property, consisting for the most part of a stock of'goods, for the benefit of all his creditors, reserving to…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Bank of Commerce v. Payne, Viley & Co.Court of Appeals of Kentucky · 1887
- German Insurance Bank v. NunesCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1882
3Cited by2 opinions
- Deposit Bank of Owensboro v. SmithCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1900
- Maskovitz v. SimonCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1901