Haynes v. Rizer

Decision Date31 December 1884
Citation82 Tenn. 246
PartiesR. E. HAYNES v. Y. M. RIZER et al.
CourtTennessee Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

FROM WILLIAMSON.

Appeal from the Chancery Court at Franklin. W. S. FLEMING, Ch.

E. M. HEARN, COOK & MARSHALL and DAVID CAMPBELL & SON for petitioner.

COOPER, J., delivered the opinion of the court.

On October 21, 1884, at half past three o'clock in the afternoon, the defendant, Y. M. Rizer, conveyed to H. H. Cook, in trust, for the benefit of all his creditors, his real and personal property and immediately thereafter acknowledged the deed for registration and delivered it to the trustee. The deed was noted for registration in the register's office of Williamson county, in which county the realty and personal chattels then were, at thirty-five minutes after six o'clock on the next morning. On the same day the deed was signed and delivered, but at a later hour of the evening, the four attachment bills, which have been consolidated in this cause, were filed by different creditors of Y. M. Rizer, to attach his property upon the ground that he was about to fraudulently dispose of his property. The attachments issued in these causes were all levied on the defendant Rizer's real estate before the trust deed was noted for registration, and were also levied upon various articles of personalty before such noting for registration, and upon other articles of personalty afterward. The subpoena to answer was, in each case, served on Rizer afterwards. He filed pleas in abatement of the writs of attachment, and answers. Such proceedings were had in the causes that the pleas were stricken out, the debts of the complainants ascertained upon reference, and a decree rendered in favor of the complainants against Rizer for the amounts severally due to them, and their respective priorities declared, a receiver to take possession of the property appointed, and the property ordered to be sold, by decree of January 9, 1885, in satisfaction of the debts, the land on credit, free from the equity of redemption.

On December 9, 1884, H. H. Cook, as trustee under the deed of assignment of Rizer, filed a petition in each of the attachment suits, for the purpose of being let in to defend his rights therein. These petitions were on the next day ordered by the court to be removed from the files, because filed without leave of the court. On the same day Cook made an application for leave to file his petitions, which motion, after consideration, was denied on December 18. On December 22, Cook made another application to file an amended petition, which motion, after consideration until December 31, was refused. On January 6, 1885, Cook, as trustee, on behalf of the creditors of Rizer, who had accepted the trust, and of all other creditors who might choose to come in and avail themselves of the benefit of the suit, filed his bill against the parties to the several attachment suits to assert his rights under the trust deed to the property in controversy. On January 7, he moved the court for leave to file his bill, as an original bill in the nature of a supplemental and cross-bill in the consolidated attachment causes, which motion was refused by the court. To the action of the court on his several applications the said Cook excepted at the time, and filed bills of exceptions showing the facts, and from the order of the court refusing his last application, he prayed an appeal, which was granted, to revise the action of the chancellor on these motions. Having given bond, as required by the chancellor, Cook has filed in this court the record in the attachment suits, with his petitions and bill, and bills of exceptions, and action of the court on his motions, and now moves this court for a writ of restitution to restore him to the possession of the property, or for an order to restrain the sale of the property, pending his appeal, or for a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Hamilton Nat. Bank v. Woods
    • United States
    • Tennessee Court of Appeals
    • 17 d5 Setembro d5 1948
    ...it, a lien on it, or a right to its possession. Without such an interest in the property, he cannot come in under this statute. Haynes v. Rizer, 82 Tenn. 246; Stretch Stretch, 2 Tenn. Ch., 140. That one as a creditor might have a right to attach the property, or to reduce his debt to judgme......
  • Hamilton Nat. Bank v. Woods
    • United States
    • Tennessee Court of Appeals
    • 17 d5 Setembro d5 1948
    ...it, a lien on it, or a right to its possession. Without such an interest in the property, he cannot come in under this statute. Haynes v. Rizer, 82 Tenn. 246; Stretch v. Stretch, 2 Tenn. Ch., 140. That one as a creditor might have a right to attach the property, or to reduce his debt to jud......
  • Marlin v. Merrill
    • United States
    • Tennessee Court of Appeals
    • 24 d6 Maio d6 1941
    ... ... Without such an interest in the property, he cannot come in ... under this statute. Haynes v. Rizer, 14 Lea 246, 82 ... Tenn. 246; Stretch v. Stretch, 2 Tenn. Ch., Cooper, ... 140. That one as a creditor might have a right to attach ... ...
  • Marlin v. Merrill
    • United States
    • Tennessee Supreme Court
    • 24 d6 Maio d6 1941
    ...a lien on it, or a right to its possession. Without such an interest in the property, he cannot come in under this statute. Haynes v. Rizer, 14 Lea 246, 82 Tenn. 246; Stretch v. Stretch, 2 Tenn. Ch., Cooper, 140. That one as a creditor might have a right to attach the property, or to reduce......
  • 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