McPike v. Atwell
Decision Date | 09 October 1885 |
Citation | 8 P. 118,34 Kan. 142 |
Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Parties | WILLIAM C. MCPIKE AND J. C. FOX, Partners as McPike & Fox, v. E. D. ATWELL |
[Copyrighted Material Omitted]
Error from Osage District Court.
THIS action was brought in the district court of Osage county, on August 1, 1884, by William C. McPike and J. C. Fox, partners as McPike & Fox, against E. D. Atwell, to recover the sum of $ 428.88 for goods sold and delivered. On the same day an affidavit and bond for attachment against the property of the defendant was filed by the plaintiffs. Among the grounds for attachment alleged in the affidavit was "that the defendant had assigned, removed and disposed of his property or a part thereof, with intent to defraud, hinder and delay his creditors." The writ of attachment was accordingly issued and levied on a stock of drugs, oils and medicines of the defendant in the city of Lyndon. On August 4, 1884, a motion was made by the defendant to dissolve the attachment upon the following grounds: To support his motion the defendant filed his affidavit denying generally the grounds for attachment alleged in the plaintiffs' affidavit. The plaintiffs, to maintain the issue on their part, introduced a deed of assignment for the benefit of creditors made by the defendant on June 19, 1884 a copy of which is as follows:
Clerk of District Court.
"I hereby accept the trust conferred on me by virtue of the foregoing deed of assignment, and assume the discharge of the duties growing out of the same, this 19th day of June, 1884.
D. H. DANHAUER.
"I do solemnly swear that I will honestly and faithfully perform the duties enjoined upon me in the above and foregoing deed of assignment as assignee of E. D. Atwell, to the best of my ability. So help me God.
D. H. DANHAUER.
The plaintiffs also offered in evidence the original inventory of all the property, effects and things assigned by the defendant to D. H. Danhauer, which was filed in the office of the clerk of the district court by said defendant at the time the assignment was made; also the schedule of liabilities of the defendant filed in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Bliss & Wood v. Couch
...Arn v. Hoerseman, 26 Kan. 413; Randall v. Shaw, 28 Kan. 419; Avery v. Eastes, 18 Kan. 505; Bishop v. Jones, 28 Kan. 680; McPike v. Atwell, 34 Kan. 142, 8 P. 118; Cuendet v. Lahmer, 16 Kan. 527. It was decided Randall v. Shaw, 28 Kan. 419, "that the vigilant creditor is entitled to the advan......
-
Lincoln v. Field
...former is to be chosen. 84 N.Y. 368; Bish. on Cont., sec. 392; 3 N.W. 945. See also, 34 N.W. 154; 11 N.E. 386; 12 id., 174; 32 N.Y. 209; 34 Kan. 142; 9 N.E. "Forthwith" means "within a reasonable time." 67 N.Y. 274; 13 P. 73; 58 Md. 261; 14 Allen, 66. The other stipulations in the deed show......
-
Trebilcock v. Big Missouri Mining Co.
...of the plaintiff,” as the burden was upon him to establish the fact. Wyman v. Wilmarth,(1890); Wilcox v. Smith,(1893); McPike v. Atwell, 34 Kan. 142, 8 Pac. 118; Strauss v. Abrahams, 32 Fed. 310; 1 Shinn, Attachm. § 115. The intent to defraud must exist as a fact, and will not be sustained ......
-
Williams v. Farmers' Gin & Grain Co.
... ... in his affidavit, by the preponderance or greater weight of ... the evidence. McPike v. Atwell, 34 Kan. 142, 8 P ... 118; Becker v. Langford, 39 Kan. 35, 17 P. 648; ... Mitchell v. Carney, 41 Kan. 139, 21 P. 158. The ... evidence ... ...