La Belle Iron Works v. Hill
| Decision Date | 16 October 1884 |
| Citation | 22 F. 195 |
| Parties | LA BELLE IRON WORKS v. HILL and others. [1] |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri |
Gilbert Elliott and Geo. R. Lockwood, for plaintiff.
Dyer Lee & Ellis, Jas. J. Lindley, and Henry W. Bond, for defendants.
This is a suit upon a draft for $2,265. The alleged grounds for attaching defendants' property are as follows: (1) That defendants have fraudulently conveyed or assigned their property or effects so as to hinder or delay their creditors (2) that defendants have fraudulently concealed, removed, or disposed of their property or effects so as to hinder or delay their creditors; (3) that defendants were about fraudulently to conceal, remove, or dispose of their property or effects so as to hinder or delay their creditors. The defendants filed a plea in abatement denying the existence of either of the alleged grounds for the attachment. The case was tried before a jury.
Plaintiff offered in evidence (1) a deed of trust dated September 18 1883, conveying to one Craig all the real estate belonging to defendants, together with all the machinery, etc., thereon in trust, to secure the payment of the debts of said firm but providing that none of the property so conveyed should be sold within two years from the date of said debt; (2) a written agreement, dated September 14, 1883, between defendants, certain of their creditors, and said Craig, but to which plaintiff was not a party. This contract provided that said Craig should conduct the business of defendants in their firm name, and should have authority to contract debts, and pay certain lien debts then outstanding; that two of the defendants should be employed by Craig, at $100 a month each, for at least four months, and for such further time and at such salary as might be agreed on between said defendants and said Craig; that out of the proceeds of the sales of the defendants' personal property and the profits of said business the claims of all creditors who signed the agreement should be paid, at such times and in such amounts as three creditors therein named might thereafter determine; and that if the debts due said creditors, with interest thereon at 6 per cent. per annum, were paid within two years, then defendants were to be repaid, or have a rebate of 1 per cent.
One of the defendants testified that said deed of trust was made with the hope that the personal property of the firm would suffice for the payment...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
W.P. Noble Mercantile Co. v. Mt. Pleasant Equitable Co.-op. Inst.
...the opportunity to commit fraud, forbids the preference, it is a constructive fraud as distinguished from an actual fraud. La Belle Iron Works v. Hill, 22 F. 195-196; Bigelow on Fraud, 10; Buell v. Buckingham, 85 Am. Dec. 519. That such a fraud does not avoid the entire assignment has been ......
-
Collins v. Stanley
... ... Jackson, 80 Wis. 48; Wyman v ... Wilmarth, 1 S.D. 172; Iron Works v. Hill, 22 F ... 195; Gregory Groc. Co. v. Young, 53 Kan. 339; ... ...
-
Wells, Fargo & Co. v. George M. Scott & Co.
...fraud. Mere constructive fraud is not sufficient. Commission Co. v. Druley, 155 Ill. 25; Wadsworth v. Laurie, 164 Ill. 42; La Belle Iron Works v. Hills, 22 F. 195; Casola v. Vasquez, 147 N.Y. 258; Spencer Deagle, 34 Mo. 455; Ferguson v. Chastant, 55 La. Annual, 339. This question is elabora......
-
Williams v. Fourth Nat. Bank
... ... Prac. 365; Jefferson ... Nat. Bank v. Purcell, 6 Ohio Dec. 936; La Belle Iron ... Works v. Hill (C. C.) 22 F. 195; Strauss v. Abrahams ... (C ... ...