Aaronson v. Deutsch

CourtUnited States District Courts. 8th Circuit. United States State District Court of Eastern District of Arkansas
Citation24 F. 465
Decision Date25 July 1885
PartiesAARONSON v. DEUTSCH.

24 F. 465

AARONSON
v.
DEUTSCH.

United States Circuit Court, E.D. Arkansas.

July 25, 1885


T. B. Martin, J. M. Taylor, and Cohn & Cohn, for plaintiff.

W. E. Hemingway, for defendant.

CALDWELL, J.

This case turns upon the validity of a deed of assignment for the benefit of creditors. Much of what is said in the opinion i, the case of Rice v. Frayser, ante, 460, is applicable to this case also. There are some points of difference which will be noticed. The plaintiff claims the deed of assignment is fraudulent in fact, and that it is void by reason of an agreement, carried into effect, to transfer the possession of the property to the assignee upon the delivery of the deed, and before the latter had given the bond and filed the inventory required by law. There is much in the evidence tending to show that the assignment, which prefers a relative of the debtor for a sum sufficient to swallow up the whole estate, was one step in a scheme to delay and defraud his creditors. It does not matter that the assignee was not a party to this scheme. He does not stand on the footing of a purchaser for value, and his participation in the fraudulent purpose does not have to be shown. Put, in fact, he did agree to and participate in an act which was in violation of the statute, and therefore a fraud upon the law.

It was the understanding of the parties to the deed that possession of the assigned property should be delivered to the assignee upon the execution and delivery of the deed, and before the assignee had qualified by giving bond and filing an inventory. Accordingly, immediately [24 F. 466] after the execution of the deed the assignor put the assignee in possession of the property. The key to the store-house containing the property, and the property itself, was delivered to the assignee; the assignor withdrew from the place and abandoned all watch or care over the property, leaving the assignee to exercise absolute and unrestricted dominion over it. The assignee had not given bond and filed the inventory up to the time the goods were attached. The contention of the learned counsel for the defendant is that, because this illegal understanding and action of the parties was not in terms provided for in the deed, the validity of the assignment is not affected thereby; and that the wrongful possession of the assignee was a matter occurring subsequent to the execution of the deed, and cannot affect its validity. The mere act of taking possession was subsequent to the execution of the deed; but it was done in pursuance of an understanding had at the time of the execution of the deed, and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 practice notes
  • Lazarus v. Camden National Bank
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Arkansas
    • October 16, 1897
    ...The assignment is fraudulent and void, because (1) the assignee was given possession before he executed his bond and filed his inventory (24 F. 465; ib. 460; 53 Ark. 88); (2) the exemptions claimed, and the manner of claiming them, make the assignment void (66 Ia. 240; 54 Ark. 229; 24 Me. 4......
  • Simmons Hardware Co. v. Rhodes, No. 6771.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • June 15, 1925
    ...assignment, the effect upon the assignment is the same as though it was found written 7 F.2d 355 therein. In Aaronson v. Deutsch (C. C.) 24 F. 465, Judge Caldwell, delivering the opinion, says: "And a deliberate agreement, in or out of the deed, made at the time and carried into effect, to ......
  • Wolf v. Gray
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Arkansas
    • March 22, 1890
    ...and has been overruled in 47 Ark. 367, 369. It is at war with other decisions of this court. 37 Ark. 64; 39 Ark. 68. See 24 F. 460; 24 F. 465. A debtor should have no right to exact releases, either as a condition of preference or otherwise. Burrill, Assignments, secs. 192, 194. The failure......
  • Fecheimer v. Robertson
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Arkansas
    • March 29, 1890
    ...delivery of possession without inventory and bond was sufficient to annul the deeds. Mansf. Dig., sec. 305; 37 Ark. 64; 24 F. 460; 24 F. 465. The deeds were void because they provided for a disposition of the property in disregard of law. Mansf. Dig., sec. 309; 37 Ark. 151; 39 Ark. 66; 47 A......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
8 cases
  • Lazarus v. Camden National Bank
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Arkansas
    • October 16, 1897
    ...The assignment is fraudulent and void, because (1) the assignee was given possession before he executed his bond and filed his inventory (24 F. 465; ib. 460; 53 Ark. 88); (2) the exemptions claimed, and the manner of claiming them, make the assignment void (66 Ia. 240; 54 Ark. 229; 24 Me. 4......
  • Simmons Hardware Co. v. Rhodes, No. 6771.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • June 15, 1925
    ...assignment, the effect upon the assignment is the same as though it was found written 7 F.2d 355 therein. In Aaronson v. Deutsch (C. C.) 24 F. 465, Judge Caldwell, delivering the opinion, says: "And a deliberate agreement, in or out of the deed, made at the time and carried into effect, to ......
  • Wolf v. Gray
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Arkansas
    • March 22, 1890
    ...and has been overruled in 47 Ark. 367, 369. It is at war with other decisions of this court. 37 Ark. 64; 39 Ark. 68. See 24 F. 460; 24 F. 465. A debtor should have no right to exact releases, either as a condition of preference or otherwise. Burrill, Assignments, secs. 192, 194. The failure......
  • Fecheimer v. Robertson
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Arkansas
    • March 29, 1890
    ...delivery of possession without inventory and bond was sufficient to annul the deeds. Mansf. Dig., sec. 305; 37 Ark. 64; 24 F. 460; 24 F. 465. The deeds were void because they provided for a disposition of the property in disregard of law. Mansf. Dig., sec. 309; 37 Ark. 151; 39 Ark. 66; 47 A......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT