Heineman v. Newman
Supreme Court of Georgia
Debtor and creditor. Fraud. Before Judge Strozer. Dougherty Superior Court. October Term, 1874.' Reported in the opinion.
1Opinion of the Court
Jackson, Judge.
This suit was brought on an open account. The account was proved to be correct. The defense was that the goods were sold to defendant to defraud creditors, and the single question submitted to us is, whether such an account can be collected. The court charged the jury that “if plaintiff sold the goods to defendant with a view to defraud his, plaintiff’s, creditors, then the law will not aid him to collect his debt, but will leave him, plaintiff, where it finds him.” The sole question is, does this charge give the law of the case correctly?
*263This general question first came before…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Nellis v. ClarkNew York Supreme Court · 1838
3Cited by12 opinions
- Parrott v. BakerSupreme Court of Georgia · 1889
- Tufts v. DuBignonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1878
- Garrison v. BurnsSupreme Court of Georgia · 1896
- Bagwell v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1902
- Davis v. JanewaySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1916
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.