Traders' Deposit Bank v. Hoffman
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
Case 42 — PETITION EQUITY APPEAL EBOM MONTGOMERY CIRCUIT COURT. 1. The allegations of .'the original and amended petition taken together, were 'Sufficient to maintain the action under the statute prohibiting fraudulent preferences. 2. The d-oetrinp is well established that a judgment can not be made available as an estoppel unless it is a judgment on the merits, and, therefore, the judgment of the Federal Court on demurrer to appellant’s intervening petition can not be an…
Read the full summary
Case 42 — PETITION EQUITY APPEAL EBOM MONTGOMERY CIRCUIT COURT. 1. The allegations of .'the original and amended petition taken together, were 'Sufficient to maintain the action under the statute prohibiting fraudulent preferences. 2. The d-oetrinp is well established that a judgment can not be made available as an estoppel unless it is a judgment on the merits, and, therefore, the judgment of the Federal Court on demurrer to appellant’s intervening petition can not be an estoppel to this ■action. (Freeman on Judgments, secs. 260-1.) 8. It appear that the non-resident, Hoffman, 'was a…
1Opinion of the Court
JUDGE PAYNTER
delivered the opinion of the court.
The petition was filed on tbe 18th day of July, 1891,. against G. TV. Goodpaster and Chas L. Gray, and H. H. Hoffman seeking to- have the property of Goodpaster and Gray, who were partners under the firm name of G. W. Goodpaster & Co,, subjected to a pro rata distribution *242among their creditors, including the plaintiff. As a ground therefor it is alleged that Goodpaster and Gray, in contemplation of insolvency and with a design to prefer Hoffman to the exclusion of the plaintiff and their other creditors, procured Hoffman to institute a suit on…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Hoffman v. BrungsCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1885
3Cited by1 opinion
- Appleton v. Southern Trust CompanyCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1932