Morley Bros. v. Stringer
Decision Date | 08 July 1903 |
Citation | 95 N.W. 978,133 Mich. 690 |
Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
Parties | MORLEY BROS. v. STRINGER et al. |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Genesee County, in Chancery; Charles H Wisner, Judge.
Action by Morley Bros. agianst Marshall L. Stringer and others. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant Marshall L. Stringer appeals. Affirmed.
This is a bill filed in aid of an execution. The facts are found in the decree of the court, and are as follows:
'(4) All of said defendants so conspired, concerted, and confederated together so that all the property of the said Parker that might have been reached and taken to satisfy the claim of such creditors was placed and kept out of the reach of creditors, and that said defendants thereby hindered, delayed, and defrauded such creditors in the collection of their just demands.
'(6) The said Marshall L. Stringer, while participating in and aiding in the fraudulent transaction as herein stated, was guilty of fraud in taking and recording said mortgage and in foreclosing the same, and in obtaining and recording said sheriff's deed.
'(7) The payment by the said Marshall L. Stringer of the mortgage on said premises so held by the Genesee County Savings Bank was voluntary, and made at a time when the said Marshall L. Stringer, Zachariah Stringer, and Edgar J. Osband had control and apparent ownership of all the property of the said Grant Parker.
'(8) The executing and recording of said mortgage from said Stringer & Osband to Marshall L. Stringer operated a still further hindrance, delay, and defraud of the said complainant and other creditors of Parker & Dunstan.
'(9) On the 17th day of April, A. D. 1893, the said complainant obtained a valid judgment against the said Grant Parker and John W. Dunstan for the sum of $254.88 damages and $29.40 costs of suit, and that said judgment remains of force and unpaid both at the time of a filing of a bill of...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Salemonson v. Thompson
...Beidler v. Crane, 135 Ill. 92, 25 N.E. 655, 25 Am. St. Rep. 349; Garland v. Rives, 25 Va. 282, 4 Rand. 282, 15 Am. Dec. 756; Morley v. Stringer (Mich.) 95 N.W. 978; Davis Leopold, 87 N.Y. 620; Menton v. Adams, 49 Cal. 620; Stovall v. Bank, 8 Smedes & M. 305, 47 Am. Dec. 85; Pettibone v. Ste......
-
Salemonson v. Thompson
...v. People, 146 Ill. 275, 34 N. E. 148;Mattingly v. Nye, 8 Wall. (U. S.) 370, 19 L. Ed. 380;Newman v. Willitts, 60 Ill. 519;Morley v. Stringer (Mich.) 95 N. W. 978;Pabst Brewing Co. v. Jensen, 68 Minn. 293, 71 N. W. 384;Moore & Handley Hardware Co. v. Curry, 106 Ala. 284, 18 South. 46;Bain v......
-
Holden v. Walker
... ... 655, 25 Am. St. Rep. 349; Garland v ... Rives, 4 Rand. 282, 15 Am. Dec. 756; Morley v ... Stringer (Mich.) 95 N.W. 978; Davis v. Leopold, ... 87 N.Y. 620; Menton v. Adams, 49 ... ...
-
Blixt v. Janowiak
...for taxes paid in Lamb v. McIntire, 183 Mass. 367, 370, 67 N. E. 320. The same rule is recognized as valid in Morley Bros. v. Stringer, 133 Mich. 690, 694, 95 N. W. 978. To the same effect Hutchinson v. Park, 72 Ark. 509, 82 S. W. 843;Sheridan v. McCormick, 39 N. D. 641, 168 N. W. 59, 8 A. ......