Hargadine v. Henderson
Decision Date | 04 March 1889 |
Citation | 97 Mo. 375,11 S.W. 218 |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Parties | HARGADINE et al. v. HENDERSON et al. |
A debtor executed an instrument by which, after reciting the claims which certain creditors had against him, and that he was "desirous of securing said debts," and certain sureties, on an obligation entered into by him, he conveyed all of his property, except his homestead and household goods, to one H., who was one of the said sureties; H. being directed, as trustee, to sell the property conveyed, whenever he should deem such a proceeding to be to the advantage of the creditors named. The principal part of the property conveyed was already incumbered by liens in favor of the said creditors, and the object of the conveyance to H. appeared to be to save such property from being sold under execution to satisfy such liens and enable it to be sold in the ordinary course of business, so that it might bring its real value. Held, that though there was no clause of defeasance in such instrument, and the possession of the property was delivered to the trustee, such instrument must be deemed a mortgage for the security of the creditors named in it, and not an assignment for the benefit of creditors, inuring to the benefit of all the creditors of the grantor.1
Appeal from circuit court, Howard county; G. H. BURCKHARTT, Judge.
Action by William A. Hargadine and others against John F. Henderson and others. Judgment was rendered dismissing the complaint, and plaintiffs appeal.
Walker & Johnson and R. P. Caples, for appellants. Thos. Shackleford and Droffen & Williams, for respondents.
On the 17th day of September, 1885, the plaintiffs (on behalf of themselves and the other creditors of the defendant John F. Henderson) filed in the Howard county circuit court a petition, stating that on the 22d day of June, 1885, the defendant John F. Henderson had duly executed and acknowledged the following conveyance, to-wit:
That said conveyance was duly acknowledged, and was on the 23d day of June, 1885, filed for record in the office of the recorder of Howard county, Mo. That the legal effect of said conveyance was an immediate and absolute appropriation of said property and effects of the said Henderson to the payment of said debts therein recited, and was and is a voluntary deed of assignment for the benefit of creditors, and, although made for the sole benefit of the creditors therein named, inures, under and by virtue of the provisions of the statutes of the state of Missouri, to the benefit of all the creditors of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
The Waggoner-Gates Milling Company v. The Ziegler-Zaiss Commission Company
...creditors. La Grange, etc., Co. v. Bank, 122 Mo. 154; Foster v. Planing Mill Co., 92 Mo. 79; Sampson v. Shaw, 19 Mo.App. 274; Hargadine v. Henderson, 97 Mo. 375; Larrabee v. Bank, 114 Mo. 592; Bank Bank, 136 U.S. 223; Rosenthal v. Frank, 37 Mo.App. 272; Manhattan v. Co., 37 Mo.App. 145. (4)......
-
Calihan v. Powers
...profession in this state, and preferences in various ways have been effectuated in the light of that adjudication. In Hargadine v. Henderson, 97 Mo. 375, 11 S.W. 218, ruling therein made was confirmed, and it was again reasserted in Jaffrey v. Mathews, 120 Mo. 317, 25 S.W. 187, in both of w......
-
Jaffrey v. Mathews
... ... property for the benefit of one or more of his creditors, to ... the exclusion of others." Hargadine v ... Henderson, 97 Mo. 375; Murray v. Cason, 15 Mo ... 378; Ames v. Gilmore, 59 Mo. 537; Shelly v ... Boothe, 73 Mo. 74; Dougherty v. Cooper, ... ...
- Hargadine v. Henderson