Byrne & Hammer Dry Goods Co. v. Willis-Dunn Co.
South Dakota Supreme Court
Appeal from Circuit Court, Custer County. Hon. LEvx McGe®, Judge. Action by the Byrne & Hammer Dry Goods Company against the Willis-Dunn Company and others. Judgment for defendants. Plaintiff appeals. A party is presumed to intend the natural and necessary consequence .of his own acts .and when prejudice to the rights of creditors results the act is constructively fraudulent .notwithstanding good motives or intentions.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Circuit Court, Custer County. Hon. LEvx McGe®, Judge. Action by the Byrne & Hammer Dry Goods Company against the Willis-Dunn Company and others. Judgment for defendants. Plaintiff appeals. A party is presumed to intend the natural and necessary consequence .of his own acts .and when prejudice to the rights of creditors results the act is constructively fraudulent .notwithstanding good motives or intentions. Manee v. McNab Co. (Tenn.), 20 S. W. 426; Schable v. Ardner (Mich.), 56. N. W. 1106; Winchester v. Charter, 97 (Mass. 140; Roberts v. Radcliffe, 35 Kan. 502. Where a…
1Opinion of the CourtWhiting, J.
This case is before us upon appeal from an order sustaining defendant’s demurrer to the complaint. The complaint is quite lengthy, and may be briefly summarized as follows: It ¡is alleged that the plaintiff is a corporation; that the defendant Willis-Dunn Company is., and has been since the month of October, 1901, a corporation, said corporation having been incorporated in October, 1901, as the Fitch-Willis Company, and having, on January, 1903, by .amendment of its articles of incorporation, changed its name to the Willis-Dunn Company; that during the year 1901, and prior thereto, the…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Austin v. Tecumseh National BankNebraska Supreme Court · 1896
- Albertoli v. BranhamCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
- Benton v. Minneapolis Tailoring & Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1898
- Metcalf v. ArnoldSupreme Court of Alabama · 1895
- Kingman & Co. v. MowryIllinois Supreme Court · 1899
3Cited by7 opinions
- Hicks v. WhitingTennessee Supreme Court · 1923
- St. Clair Lime Co. v. Ada Lime Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1945
- Fostoria Milling & Grain Co. v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1928
- Pringle v. HunsickerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1957
- Wasson v. Anglo-Texas Oil Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1928
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.