Smith v. Baker
Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Error from the District Court of Canadian County. STATEMENT OE EACTS. The judgment of the court below, from which this appeal is prosecuted, was upon a motion for judgment upon the petition and answer in the cause, and adjudging certain conveyances to be an assignment for the benefit of creditors, appointing a receiver to take charge of the property and effects conveyed, and for a sale thereof, and decreeing that the funds arising from such sale should be held by such…
Read the full summary
Error from the District Court of Canadian County. STATEMENT OE EACTS. The judgment of the court below, from which this appeal is prosecuted, was upon a motion for judgment upon the petition and answer in the cause, and adjudging certain conveyances to be an assignment for the benefit of creditors, appointing a receiver to take charge of the property and effects conveyed, and for a sale thereof, and decreeing that the funds arising from such sale should be held by such receiver in trust to be applied in payment of the costs and expenses of the suit and of the indebtedness due the creditors of…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
TaRSNey, J.:
The question, in this case, is directly this.: Is the legal effect of the above stated facts to make the bill of sale and chattel mortgage a general assignment, by Smith & Smith, for'the benefit of their creditors? At common law, a debtor, in failing circumstances, may use any and all of his property to pay one or more of his creditors in preference to others. There was no principle or rule of the common law, which limited or controlled the right of an insolvent debtor in the distribution of his assets, provided they were applied in…
2Cases cited22 opinions
- Buell v. Buckingham & Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1864
- Latta v. KilbournSupreme Court of the United States · 1893
- Andrews v. HoveySupreme Court of the United States · 1888
- Buxton v. TraverSupreme Court of the United States · 1889
- Crow v. BeardsleySupreme Court of Missouri · 1878
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Mitchell v. WaltersWyoming Supreme Court · 1940
- Randolph v. HudsonSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1903
- State Ex Rel. Westerheide v. ShillingSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1942
- Todd v. County of Box ButteNebraska Supreme Court · 1959
- Noble v. Ft. Smith Wholesale Grocery Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1911
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.