Lyons v. Urgalones
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
1Opinion of the CourtLoring, J.
[After the foregoing statement of the case.] We are of opinion that the demandant was not entitled to go to the jury on the ground that the conveyance of the tenant was a fraudulent conveyance as against the demandant who was a subsequent creditor. There was no evidence that Mrs. Tutlis was insolvent or in pecuniary difficulties at any time. The demand-ant, on cross-examination, testified that when the mortgage for $1,000 was made by the tenant, out of which he received $600, he “ didn’t think that Agnes Tutlis intended to defraud me, and I didn’t think that the property was conveyed in…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Snow v. PaineMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1874
- Skehill v. AbbottMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1903
- Bresnihan v. SheehanMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1878
- Warren v. ChildsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1814
- Rawson v. PlaistedMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1890
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Pollock v. PollockMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1916
- Cunningham v. BrightMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1917
- Holden v. WalkerNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1933
- Malden Trust Co. v. GeorgeMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1939
- Citizens Bank v. ColemanMassachusetts Appeals Court · 2013
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.