Bogert v. Haight
New York Court of Chancery
This was an appeal from an order of the vice chancellor of the seventh circuit, denying an application to dissolve an injunction. The bill, as to the defendants Haight and Banning, was an ordinary creditor’s suit to obtain satisfaction of a judgment recovered against them for a copartnership debt, which the complainant had not been able to collect by execution at law.
Read the full summary
This was an appeal from an order of the vice chancellor of the seventh circuit, denying an application to dissolve an injunction. The bill, as to the defendants Haight and Banning, was an ordinary creditor’s suit to obtain satisfaction of a judgment recovered against them for a copartnership debt, which the complainant had not been able to collect by execution at law. Previous to the recovery of the judgment against them Haight & Banning assigned all their joint property and partnership effects to the defendants, Spring, Bogert, and Youngs, in trust for the payment of all their joint or…
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellor.
The objection to the assignment of the joint or copartnership property which is insisted upon as rendering that assignment fraudulent and void is, that by *302the last clause the assignees, after paying all the copartnership debts, are to return the surplus to the assignors; without making any provision for the payment of the individual debts of the partners. A short answer to this objection is that it no where appears that either of the assignors owed any individual debts at the time the assignment, of the 25th of March, 1841, was executed. And as fraud is not to be presumed, if…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Crook v. . RindskopfNew York Court of Appeals · 1887
- Hollister v. LoudMichigan Supreme Court · 1852
- Belmont Branch v. HogeThe Superior Court of New York City · 1861
- Wooldridge v. IrvingUnited States Circuit Court · 1884