Penzel Grocer Co. v. Williams
Supreme Court of Arkansas
APPEAL from Pulaski Chancery Court. D. W. Carroll, Chancellor. 1. Brodie is shown to have been interested as a partner, land the preference to him was a fraud upon creditors. Moreover, Brodie’s assets were not turned over to the assignee. [46 Ark., 405. 2. The assignors withheld firm assets. 46 Ark., 405 ; |Acts of 1887, p. 194. 3. The assignment was executed for the purpose of evading the assignment laws of the State.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from Pulaski Chancery Court. D. W. Carroll, Chancellor. 1. Brodie is shown to have been interested as a partner, land the preference to him was a fraud upon creditors. Moreover, Brodie’s assets were not turned over to the assignee. [46 Ark., 405. 2. The assignors withheld firm assets. 46 Ark., 405 ; |Acts of 1887, p. 194. 3. The assignment was executed for the purpose of evading the assignment laws of the State. Before it was fully consummated and before the assignee took control, it was concerted into a receivership, upon a bill that has not a single rround of equitable jurisdiction…
1Opinion of the Court
SANDELS J.
On July 1, 1887, Williams & Martin bégan .a general grocery business at Little Rock, and continued together until about December 20, 1887, when Martin, who had put no money in the firm, withdrew. After that the firm was B. R. Williams & Co. J. R. Williams became a member about March 1, 1888.
On April 19, 1888, B. R. Williams & Co. made a general assignment of all partnership and individual property (except hat exempt from levy and sale under execution) to J. K. Brodie, preferring, among others, Parker & Worthen for 1,000.00'and J. K. Brodie for $3,440.00.
On the same day Parker &…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Shultz v. . HoaglandNew York Court of Appeals · 1881
- Craft v. BloomMississippi Supreme Court · 1881
3Cited by1 opinion
- Hahn v. KrollWashington Supreme Court · 1934