Crittenden Bros. v. Coleman & Co.
| Decision Date | 28 February 1883 |
| Citation | 70 Ga. 293 |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
| Parties | Crittenden Brothers et al. vs. Coleman & Company et al. |
Injunction and Receiver. Debtor and Creditor. Insolvency. Before Judge Clarke. Randolph County. At Chambers. January 6, 1883.
Reported in the decision.
Kennon & Rambo; A. Hood, Sr., for plaintiffs in error.
W. D. Kiddoo; A. Hood, Jr.; Thomas Willingham, for defendants.
This is a writ of error to an injunction and the appointment of a receiver. On the grant of such an order, this court will not control the discretion of the chancellor on contested facts, unless it has been abused.
From the bill, answers and affidavits before the chancellor, these facts are made out by the complainant, though controverted by the defendants, and they are sufficiently proved to show that the chancellor has not abused his discretion:
That complainants are creditors of Lane & Company; that defendants were engaged in mercantile business at Ward\'s station in Randolph county in 1881 and 1882; that on representation of their solvency and assets, goods were sold them by some of complainants in the fall of 1882; that an assignment was attempted to be made of the assets of Lane & Company, but is illegal because no schedule was made out and attached thereto, in accordance with the act of 1880-81, page 74; that the assignment was made to R. E. Kennon, the counsel of Lane & Company, and brother-in-law of one of the firm; that the preferred creditor is Mrs. Lane, the wife of one of the firm and sister of the assignee\'s wife; that the notes to her were made the 7th of September, 1882, and mortgage to secure them the same day, of all the goods; that the assignee at once sold out all the goods to Crittenden Brothers, also merchants at Ward Station, in a lump and in great haste, at a discount; that Crittenden Brothers have mixed, as they themselves allege, these goods with their own, immediately on their receipt; that one-third cash, one-third at thirty and one-third at sixty days, are the terms of sale; that large sums have been already paid in cash on said notes to Mrs. Lane, and acceptances turned over to her by Kennon, the assignee; that there is complicity between the assignee and Crittenden Brothers and Lane & Company, to hinder, delay and defeat creditors, who are complainants; that some of the creditors hold collaterals in respect to some effects which have been assigned to Kennon; that the debt alleged as due Mrs. Lane is attacked as fraudulent; that the firm is composed of A. Lane, and his son, agent, and a short time before the assignment, this large indebtedness of several thousand dollars is made by note and mortgage to the wife and mother; and that complainants, on these facts and charges, make a case for equitable interference by injunction and receiver
The legal question is, are these facts, if true, sufficient to authorize equity, to interpose an injunction and appoint a receiver.
The assignment is made in a hurry. The sale to Crittenden Brothers as hurriedly. The schedule seems to have been completed after this transaction. It was not, therefore, attached to the assignment when made. The assignee, it is alleged, is in complicity with his relatives. The creditors were induced to sell portions of the goods to Lane & Company, on their false and fraudulent representation of large assets and perfect solvency, and yet they are insolvent The assignee has thus sold to...
To continue reading
Request your trial