Arbuckle Bros. v. Kirkpatrick
Tennessee Supreme Court
EROM DAVIDSON. Appeal from Chancery Court of Davidson County. Thos. H. Malone, Ch.
1Opinion of the CourtWilkes, J.
The complainants are dealers in Ar-iosa coffee, and claim that Kirkpatrick & Co. were their factors to sell this coffee. Kirkpatrick & Co. failed April 5, 1896, and assigned all their accounts, goods on hand, etc., to Keith & Wilkin, to pay-several classes of creditors — Arbuckle being in the tenth class. Among the property so' assigned were sums due to Kirkpatrick & Co. for Ariosa coffee sold by thein, and not collected. They had also collected considerable sums from these sales, and had used the money. The bill seeks to reach:
1. All accounts for the coffee which Kirkpatick & Co. had not…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Sturm v. BokerSupreme Court of the United States · 1893
- Milburn Manufacturing Co. v. PeakTexas Supreme Court · 1896
- National Bank v. GoodyearSupreme Court of Georgia · 1893
- Barnes Safe & Lock Co. v. Bloch Bros. Tobacco Co.West Virginia Supreme Court · 1893
- Rathburn v. HamiltonSupreme Court of Kansas · 1894
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by32 opinions
- Board of Com'rs v. StrawnCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1907
- Bush v. Export Storage Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Tennessee · 1904
- In re Bettman-Johnson Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1918
- Arbuckle Bros. v. Gates & BrownSupreme Court of Virginia · 1898
- In re MulliganDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · 1902
27 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.