Schmitz v. Wisconsin Soap Manufacturing Co.
Wisconsin Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtWickhem, J.
The appellant’s contentions are that the defendant company was insolvent as far back as 1925, and that the chattel mortgages taken by Barly constituted an unlawful preference as against other creditors of the defendant corporation, and hence are void.
According to a majority of courts, an insolvent corporation, so long as it remains a going concern in possession and control of its property, may prefer one creditor to another, even though that creditor be an officer or director. Note 5 A. L. R. 561; 7 Ruling Case Law, p. 755. In some jurisdictions this rule is not approved. 7 Ruling Case Law,…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Twin-Lick Oil Co. v. MarburySupreme Court of the United States · 1876
- Haywood v. Lincoln Lumber Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1885
- Wyman v. BowmanCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1904
- Ford v. HillWisconsin Supreme Court · 1896
- Hinz v. Van DusenWisconsin Supreme Court · 1897
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Beloit Liquidating Trust v. GradeWisconsin Supreme Court · 2004
- McGivern v. Amasa Lumber Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1977
- Malloy v. KorfDistrict Court, E.D. Wisconsin · 1972
- Beloit Liquidating Trust v. GradeCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 2003
- Scheppke v. RiceCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1934
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.