Legal Opinion

Kinnie v. Kinnie

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided June 3, 1924PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtJones, J.

It is one of the contentions of plaintiff’s counsel that the execution of the deed by C. J. Kinnie was for the purpose of defrauding future creditors; that he was about to embark in business and desired to retain apparent ownership of the real estate in question to enhance his credit and at the same time to avoid payment of indebtedness which might arise if it should suit his purpose.

Undoubtedly if under such circumstances secret conveyances are made with the agreement that they shall be withheld from record and future creditors extend credit, relying on the apparent ownership of the property…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Hickman's Ex'or v. TroutSupreme Court of Virginia · 1887
  2. Stock-Growers' Bank v. NewtonSupreme Court of Colorado · 1889
  3. Hopkins v. JoyceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1891
  4. Wall v. BeedySupreme Court of Missouri · 1901
  5. Second National Bank of Beloit v. MerrillWisconsin Supreme Court · 1892

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Johnson v. MielkeWisconsin Supreme Court · 1970
  2. Bradley v. SeldenWisconsin Supreme Court · 1930
  3. Bank of Dallas v. PetersonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1935

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API