32 S.W. 490 (Ark. 1895), Senter v. Williams

Citation:32 S.W. 490, 61 Ark. 189
Opinion Judge:HUGHES, J.,
Party Name:SENTER v. WILLIAMS
Attorney:Rose, Hemingway & Rose and J. H. Arnold, for appellants. J. W. House, for Barbara Hubbard; J. D. Conway and W. S. Eakin, for the other appellees.
Case Date:October 19, 1895
Court:Supreme Court of Arkansas
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 490

32 S.W. 490 (Ark. 1895)

61 Ark. 189

SENTER

v.

WILLIAMS

Supreme Court of Arkansas

October 19, 1895

Appeal from Hempstead Circuit Court in Chanrery, RUFUS D. HEARN, Judge.

STATEMENT BY THE COURT.

Baird & Caruth, merchants at Washington, Hempstead county, failed in business, and made a general assignment. Virginia J. Williams, one of the preferred creditors, filed, in behalf of herself and all other creditors, a suit setting up that the assignee had been unable to make bond, and praying for the appointment of a receiver. The assignee was appointed receiver.

Barbara Hubbard, and two other creditors of Baird & Carruth, filed in the suit their cross complaint, in the nature of a creditors' bill, on behalf of themselves and all other creditors of the assignors who might wish to join them, alleging that the assignment was fraudulent, because the assignors had intentionally withheld a part of their property, and for other reasons. Several creditors, including the original plaintiff, came in and adopted the allegations of the cross-complaint.

Upon a hearing the assignment was adjudged to be fraudulent, and was set aside, and it was ordered that the receiver distribute the proceeds of the property among the creditors who had intervened.

After the decree, and before the fund had been distributed, Senter & Co. intervened, setting up that they had a claim upon which they had recovered judgment in the sum of $ 50,000 against Baird & Caruth, and praying that they be allowed to share in the distribution. Their petition was disallowed. On the same day they filed another intervention, alleging that, as security for their indebtedness, and before the failure, Baird & Caruth had transferred to them a note of one Phillips, secured by mortgage, and that the receiver had collected the rent on the mortgaged land, amounting to $ 140, when the land had never belonged to Baird & Caruth, and said moneys should go to Senter & Co.; that Baird & Caruth, before the failure, sold another tract to one Faucette, and transferred the purchase lien money notes to Senter & Co. as security, but that the receiver had taken possession of the land, rented it to Faucette, and collected the rents, amounting to $ 40; that Baird & Caruth had sold some land to Parker & Rike, and transferred the purchase money lien notes to Senter & Co., and that the receiver had taken possession of said land, rented it to Parker & Rike, and collected the rents, amounting to $ 90; that Baird & Caruth sold one Sexton another tract, and transferred the purchase money lien notes to Senter & Co. before their failure, but that the receiver had taken possession of the land, and collected the rents, amounting to $ 250; that Baird & Caruth had sold another tract to one Mitchell, and had transferred the purchase money lien notes to Senter & Co. before their failure, but that the receiver had taken possession of said land, rented it to said Mitchell, and collected the rent, amounting to $ 50; that Baird & Caruth are insolvent; that said lands and the other securities of Senter & Co. are inadequate to protect them; that the money was collected by the receiver without their knowledge or consent; and they pray that the amounts of rents collected, whether in money or notes, be turned over to them. This intervention likewise was denied, and Senter & Co. have appealed from both decrees.

Decree...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP