Clements v. Moore Moore v. Clements
Decision Date | 01 December 1867 |
Citation | 73 U.S. 299,18 L.Ed. 786,6 Wall. 299 |
Parties | CLEMENTS v. MOORE. MOORE v. CLEMENTS |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
MRS. NICHOLSON'S answer (which the complainants offered to receive without oath, but to which nevertheless she swore), was confined to the lots; the matter which was the subject of the bill so far as respected her. Denying all fraud, her answer stated that when she married Nicholson, she had in ready money the sum of about $1000, her own separate property; that her husband informed her that he was much pressed for some ready money, and agreed with her to give her in pledge two promissory notes of Moore, not then due, for about $500 each, for the use of this money; that she did give to her said husband the use of her said money, and took in lieu thereof the notes. She did not remember distinctly when she made the arrangement, but thought that it was some time during the year 1849 or 1850, and 'that it was some time afterwards that she surrendered to the said Moore the said notes in discharge of a mortgage, which said Nicholson had before that time executed to him on the lots.'
A part of the testimony having been taken, the complainants filed a paper thus:
'The plaintiffs in this cause hereby join issue with the defendants [naming them all], and will here the cause, on bill, answer, and proofs, against the defendants.'
The sixty-sixth rule of practice prescribed by this court for courts of equity of the United States, orders that——
THE FACTS, so far as proved by testimony, seemed to be thus: Nicholson was a trader at Bastrop, and in the spring and summer of 1851 was, in fact, embarrassed, and generally ally reputed so to be in his affairs.
As to the goods. After the sale of the merchandise, it appeared—on the one hand—that a short time previously to the sale of them—one House then pressing him through Mr. Larkins, an attorney in Bastrop, for payment of a debt due him, and the attorney and Nicholson entering, somewhat confidentially, into consideration of the latter's affairs—Nicholson stated that he could pay House's claim, but that doing so would leave him so much embarrassed that he was afraid that a certain New York firm, which was named (and which was, in fact, the complainants in this suit), would 'come down on him and appropriate hie effects to the exclusion of a large amount of home and other debts, which he thought ought to be preferred under the circumstances.' The debt of House having, through the efforts of Mr. Larkins, been satisfied, that person suggested to him the propriety of making to some one an assignment, by which provision could be made for any creditors whom he might wish to favor; and suggested the name of o ore as 'a suitable man to close up the business.' While Nicholson and Larkins were thus conversing, Moore happened to pass along in the street, and they, seeing him through the window, called him in. Nicholson then proposed to him to accept an assignment such as above mentioned. Moore said that he would take the matter under advisement; and the next day Larkins was desired to draw up such an assignment as had been contemplated. Becoming indisposed, however, the drawing of the deed was deferred. On getting to his office again, several days after the original conversation, Moore called to tell him, that he had decided not to take an assignment, but had purchased the goods absolutely.
As to what passed between Nicholson and Moore at the immediate time of the sale itself, little was shown by proofs, except that it was made on the 7th July, 1851;...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Grayson v. Westwood Buildings L.P.
...a mosaic of statutes and decisions, which had been developed around the Statute of Elizabeth").14 See, e.g. , Clements v. Moore , 73 U.S. (6 Wall.) 299, 312-13, 18 L.Ed. 786 (1867) (holding a fraudulent purchaser liable); Williamson's Ex'r v. Goodwyn , 50 Va. (9 Gratt.) 503, 506-07 (1852) (......
-
Butler v. Wilkinson
...as to the creditors. See, e.g., 13 Elizabeth 1 (1570) Ch. 5; Twyne's Case, 3 Coke 80a, 76 Eng. Rep. 809 (1601); Clements v. Moore, 73 U.S. (6 Wall.) 299, 312, 18 L.Ed. 786 (1867); Smith v. Holland, 298 Ky. 598, 603-604, 183 S.W.2d 647, 649 (Ky.Ct.App.1944); Rainier National Bank v. McCracke......
-
Salemonson v. Thompson
...fraudulently transferred, protects the grantee. Crowninshield v. Kittridge, 7 Metcf. 520; Steere v. Hoagland, 50 Ill. 377; Clements v. Nicholson, 6 Wall. 299, 18 Law Ed. Sprague v. Ryan, 75 N.W. 390; Vorhees, Miller & Co. v. Blanton, 83 F. 234; Bump on Fraudulent Conveyances, section 500; G......
-
Reyburn v. Mitchell
... ... Kilgour against the partnership. Clements v. Moore, ... 6 Wall. 299; Wait on Fraud. Conv., sec. 193, p. 275; Bump ... ...