Jaffray v. Gehee
Decision Date | 19 March 1883 |
Parties | JAFFRAY and others v. McGEHEE and others |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
The statutes of Arkansas contain the following provisions:
While these sections were in force, to-wit, on December 19, 1878, James C. Moss and John S. Bell, partners under the name of Moss & Bell, doing business as merchants at Pine Bluff, Arkansas, conveyed, by an assignment in writing, all their goods, wares, and merchandise, and choses in action, to the defendant James M. Hudson, as trustee in trust for the payment of their debts. The deed of assignment preferred certain creditors, who afterwards became the complainants in this suit, and required the trustee to pay them in full, if the proceeds of the property assigned should be sufficient for that purpose, and if there should be any surplus to pay it share and share alike to other creditors. The powers conferred on the trustee were as follows:
'To sell and dispose of all of said property for cash, as he should deem advisable and right, and to this end to use his own discretion, subject to the supervision of the creditors, * * * and to conduct and transact all of the business as he may deem proper in the exercise of a sound discretion, and as he shall deem most advisable for the benefit of creditors and their trust; and he shall have power to appoint such assistants, agents, and attorneys as in his judgment may be necessary to enable him to fulfill this trust,' etc.
Hudson accepted the trust, and on December 21, 1878, gave bond according to law, and filed in the office of the clerk of the probate court an inventory of the property conveyed to him by the deed of assignment.
On December 21, 1878, the defendants McGehee, Snowden & Violett recovered against Moss & Bell, in the United States circuit court for the eastern district of Arkansas, a judgment for $10,992, on which execution was issued on January 12, 1879, and the same came into the hands of the marshal of the district on that day. The marshal levied the execution on the goods and chattels assigned by Bell & Moss to Hudson, and took them into his possession, and was about to advertise and sell the same to satisfy the execution, when the bill in this case was filed by the complainants, who were the preferred creditors named in the assignment. The bill recited the foregoing facts and prayed an injunction against the marshal and McGehee, Snowden & Violett, forbidding them to interfere with the property assigned to Hudson, and that they might be decreed to return the same to him, etc.
The defendants demurred to the bill for want of equity. The circuit court sustained the demurrer on the ground that the deed of assignment was void on its face, and dismissed the bill. The purpose of this appeal is to reverse that decree.
Sol F. Clark and S. W. Williams, for appellant.
U. M. Rose, for appellee.
The statute of Arkansas provides that the property assigned for the benefit of creditors shall be sold at public auction within 120 days after the execution of the bond required of the assignee.
The deed of assignment in effect...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Brewer-Elliott Oil & Gas Co. v. United States
... ... law is involved. Lloyd et al. v. Fulton, 91 U.S ... 479, 482, 23 L.Ed. 363; Jaffray v. McGehee, 107 U.S ... 361, 364, 365, 2 Sup.Ct. 367, 27 L.Ed. 495; Detroit v ... Osborne, 135 U.S. 492, 10 Sup.Ct. 1012, 34 L.Ed. 260; ... ...
-
Richmond v. Mississippi Mills
...assignments they are void, because no bond was filed, and the sale was to be made contrary to law. 39 Ark. 66; 107 U.S. 361; 37 Ark. 150; 47 id., 367. U. M. & G. B. Rose, Amici Considerable confusion as to the nature of assignments arises by confounding the term as used in speaking of insol......
-
Ottenberg v. Corner
... ... West, 7 Pet. 608, 615; Allen ... v. Massey, 17 Wall. 351; Lloyd v. Fulton, 91 ... U.S. 479, 485; Sumner v. Hicks, 2 Black, 532, 534; ... Jaffray v. McGehee, 107 U.S. 361, 365, 2 Sup.Ct ... 367; Peters v. Bain, 133 U.S. 670, 686, 10 Sup.Ct ... 354; Randolph's Ex'r v. Quidnick Co., 135 ... ...
-
Union Nat Bank of Chicago v. Bank of Kansas City
...608, 615; Allen v. Massey, 17 Wall. 351; Lloyd v. Fulton, 91 U. S. 479, 485; Sumner v. Hicks, 2 Black, 532, 534; Jaffray v. McGehee, 107 U. S. 361, 365, 2 Sup. Ct. Rep. 367; Peters v. Bain, 133 U. S. 670, 686, ante, 354; Jencks v. Quidnick Co., 135 U. S. , ante, 655. The decision in White v......