Horstmann v. LaFargue
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Arkansas Chancery Court; John M. Elliott, Chancellor; 1. There was no evidence to justify the finding that the mortgages were given or kept on record to cheat or defraud plaintiff or any one else. In order to set aside a conveyance for being fraudulent as to future creditors, it must be shown that the debtor reasonably had in mind or contemplation the contracting of future debts at the time the conveyance is made.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Arkansas Chancery Court; John M. Elliott, Chancellor; 1. There was no evidence to justify the finding that the mortgages were given or kept on record to cheat or defraud plaintiff or any one else. In order to set aside a conveyance for being fraudulent as to future creditors, it must be shown that the debtor reasonably had in mind or contemplation the contracting of future debts at the time the conveyance is made. Plaintiff failed to show that defendant did not have enough property left to pay all his debts after the mortguges had been executed, hence no evidence of his…
1Opinion of the CourtSmith, J.
This suit was filed by appellee, E. B. LaFargue, on March 12, 1917, in the Arkansas Chancery Court against Henry Horstmann, Sr., Henry Horstmann, Jr., and Annie Horstmann, the wife of Henry Horstmann, Jr., to recover damages for personal injuries and to uncover certain real estate alleged to have been mortgaged by Henry Horstmann, Jr., in fraud of his creditors. Horstmann, Sr., who lived with his son as a member of his family, died before the rendition of the final decree, but the cause was properly revived against his administrator and judgment was rendered against all the defendants for the…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Seth v. CramerCourt for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors · 1825
- Clarke v. WhiteSupreme Court of the United States · 1838
- Carpenter v. . OsbornNew York Court of Appeals · 1886
- Bradley v. BosleyNew York Court of Chancery · 1845
- Brooks v. StolleyU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Ohio · 1845
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by22 opinions
- Liles v. LilesSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1986
- Blair v. Clear Creek Oil & Gas Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1921
- District No. 21 United Mine Workers of America v. BourlandSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1925
- Conner v. HeatonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1943
- Eiermann v. BeckSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1952
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.