Anniston Loan & Trust Co. v. Ward
| Court | Supreme Court of Alabama |
| Writing for the Court | BRICKELL, C.J. |
| Citation | 108 Ala. 85,18 So. 937 |
| Decision Date | 10 January 1896 |
| Parties | ANNISTON LOAN & TRUST CO. ET AL. v. WARD ET AL. |
18 So. 937
108 Ala. 85
ANNISTON LOAN & TRUST CO. ET AL.
v.
WARD ET AL.
Supreme Court of Alabama
January 10, 1896
Appeal from city court of Anniston; James W. Lapsley, Judge.
A bill was originally filed by Ward & Co. and others to have a mortgage executed by the Anniston Carriage Works to the Anniston Loan & Trust Company declared a general assignment for the benefit of creditors. After the affirmance of a decree in favor of complainants (14 So. 417, 101 Ala. 670), the fund realized from the property was distributed ratably after the deduction of solicitors' fees. From this decree of distribution, the Anniston Loan & Trust Company appeals. Affirmed.
Cassady, Blackwell & Keith, for appellees.
Knox, Bowie & Petham, for appellants.
BRICKELL, C.J.
The suit originally was a bill filed by Ward & Co. and others, general creditors of the Anniston Carriage Works, on behalf of themselves and all other creditors of the carriage works, seeking to have a mortgage executed to the Anniston Loan & Trust Co., for its exclusive security, declared a general assignment, inuring under the statute (Code, § 1737) to the equal benefit of all creditors. A decree was rendered declaring the mortgage a general assignment, and requiring the loan and trust company to account for the moneys it had received from a sale of the property, which, on appeal to this court, was affirmed. Carriage Works v. Ward, 101 Ala. 670, 14 So. 417. After the affirmance of the decree, the loan and trust company propounded and proved its debt or demand, and was allowed to share with the other creditors in the distribution of the fund brought under the control of the court for administration, but insisted that its share of the fund was not to be diminished by an allowance of compensation to the solicitors of the original complainants. The insistence was overruled, the compensation of the solicitors [18 So. 938.] was charged on the aggregate fund brought before the court, and the single question now presented is whether the compensation should have been charged on the aggregate fund, or only on so much thereof as remained after deducting the ratable proportion of the loan and trust company.
A general assignment, as known to the common law, is defined by Burrill as an assignment "by which all, or substantially all, the debtor's property is appropriated for the benefit either of one or more preferred creditors, or of the creditors at large," made by a debtor in declining or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dent v. Foy, 4 Div. 196
...Ala. 547, 70 So. 685; Pollard v. Land Co., 139 Ala. 183, 35 So. 767; Faulk v. Hobbie, 178 Ala. 254, 59 So. 450; Anniston Loan Co. v. Ward, 108 Ala. 85, 18 So. 937; Roy v. O'Neill, 168 Ala. 361, 52 So. 946. Alongside this rule, and frequently in the same cases where it is announced, here is ......
-
State Ex Rel. Buckwalter v. City of Lakeland
...on Munic. Corp. (5th Ed.) § 893; 10 R. C. L. 381; 38 C.J. 546-550; 21 C.J. subject 'Equity,' § 207; Anniston Loan & Trust Co. v. Ward, 108 Ala. 85, 18 So. 937; Portland Sav. Bank v. City of Montesano, 14 Wash. 570, 45 P. 158; City of Cleveland, Tenn., v. United States (C. C. A.) 111 F. 341;......
-
Penney v. Pritchard & McCall, 6 Div. 65
...70 Ala. 534, in which the Court declared the principle as existing prior to our statute. In the case of Anniston Loan & Trust Co. v. Ward, 108 Ala. 85, 18 So. 937, this Court again referring to Grimball v. Cruse, supra, and quoting from it, declared the same principle and also referred to t......
-
Andrews v. Grey, 7 Div. 847
...Co., 178 Ala. 254, 59 So. 450; Roy v. O'Neill, 168 Ala. 354, 52 So. 946; Jones v. White, 112 Ala. 449, 20 So. 527; Anniston v. Ward, 108 Ala. 85, 18 So. 937; Vaughan v. Smith, 69 Ala. 92). In the decisions as to findings of fact by the register on evidence given viva voce, section 5955, sub......
-
Dent v. Foy, 4 Div. 196
...Ala. 547, 70 So. 685; Pollard v. Land Co., 139 Ala. 183, 35 So. 767; Faulk v. Hobbie, 178 Ala. 254, 59 So. 450; Anniston Loan Co. v. Ward, 108 Ala. 85, 18 So. 937; Roy v. O'Neill, 168 Ala. 361, 52 So. 946. Alongside this rule, and frequently in the same cases where it is announced, here is ......
-
State Ex Rel. Buckwalter v. City of Lakeland
...on Munic. Corp. (5th Ed.) § 893; 10 R. C. L. 381; 38 C.J. 546-550; 21 C.J. subject 'Equity,' § 207; Anniston Loan & Trust Co. v. Ward, 108 Ala. 85, 18 So. 937; Portland Sav. Bank v. City of Montesano, 14 Wash. 570, 45 P. 158; City of Cleveland, Tenn., v. United States (C. C. A.) 111 F. 341;......
-
Penney v. Pritchard & McCall, 6 Div. 65
...70 Ala. 534, in which the Court declared the principle as existing prior to our statute. In the case of Anniston Loan & Trust Co. v. Ward, 108 Ala. 85, 18 So. 937, this Court again referring to Grimball v. Cruse, supra, and quoting from it, declared the same principle and also referred to t......
-
Andrews v. Grey, 7 Div. 847
...Co., 178 Ala. 254, 59 So. 450; Roy v. O'Neill, 168 Ala. 354, 52 So. 946; Jones v. White, 112 Ala. 449, 20 So. 527; Anniston v. Ward, 108 Ala. 85, 18 So. 937; Vaughan v. Smith, 69 Ala. 92). In the decisions as to findings of fact by the register on evidence given viva voce, section 5955, sub......