Petition of Keach
| Decision Date | 02 December 1884 |
| Citation | 14 R.I. 571 |
| Parties | PETITION OF ROBERT L. KEACH, Receiver, in Briggs v. Chadwick. |
| Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
A receiver of an insolvent debtor, appointed under Pub. Stat R.I. cap. 237, § 13, is entitled to a patent right belonging to the debtor.
The words in this statutory provision, " exempted from attachment by law," mean exempt by statute.
Under this statutory provision the court may order the debtor to assign his patent right to the receiver.
PETITION for an order of the court.
The petitioner was by a decree of this court entered October 25 1884 appointed receiver of the property of Chadwick & Lester an insolvent copartnership, under Pub. Stat. R.I. cap. 237, § 13, which is as follows:
SECT 13. Whenever any debtor, being insolvent, shall do any act or make any conveyance whereby any one of his creditors shall obtain a preference over any other of his creditors, or omit to do any act which he might lawfully do to prevent one of his creditors from obtaining a preference over his other creditors, contrary to the intent of this chapter, any one or more of his creditors holding not less than one fifth of the debts in amount of such debtor may file a petition in equity in the Supreme Court in the county where such debtor resides but which may be heard in any county, and after notice to the debtor and to the creditors sought to be preferred of the time and place of hearing thereon, the court sitting in banc shall proceed, summarily, to hear the parties; and if it shall appear to the court that such debtor is insolvent, and has been giving or is about to give a preference to any of his creditors over others of such creditors, the court shall appoint, from the nominations by the creditors, a receiver, who shall take possession of all the property, evidences of property, books, papers, debts, choses in action, and estate of every kind of the debtor, including estate and property attached or levied on within sixty days prior to the filing of said petition and remaining unsold as aforesaid, and including also all estate and property theretofore conveyed by such debtor in fraud of the rights of creditors or in violation of the provisions of this chapter, but excepting so much of said estate and property, other than debts secured by bills of exchange or negotiable promissory notes, as is or shall be exempted from attachment by law, and convert the same into money, and marshal and distribute the same among the several creditors of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Howe
...been assigned to creditors, because they were by their nature exempt from attachment. The court disagreed. Following the case of In re Keach, 14 R.I. 571 (1884), the court ruled first that the term "exempt from attachment" excepted only property protected from attachment by Rhode Island's s......
-
Campbell v. City of Haverhill
...law, if the court so orders. Ashcroft v. Walworth, 1 Holmes, 152, Fed. Cas. No. 580; Barton v. White, 144 Mass. 281, 10 N. E. 840; In re Keach, 14 R. I. 571. In Beatty's Adm'rs v. Burns' Adm'rs, 8 Cranch, 98, an action was brought in the circuit court for the District of Columbia to recover......
-
Hoyt v. Bates
...to be made (Barton v. White, 144 Mass. 218, 10 N.E. 840; Somerby v. Buntin, 118 Mass. 279; Binney v. Annan, 107 Mass. 94; In re Keach, 14 R.I. 571; Fuller & Johnson Manuf'g Co. v. Bartlett, Wis. 73, 31 N.W. 747; Bank v. Robinson, 57 Cal. 520); While the federal court has declined jurisdicti......
-
In re Keene
...had a right to refuse to apply it to the payment of the judgment. We do not think this position is tenable. This court decided in Be Keach, 14 R. I. 571, that a patent-right is not "exempt from attachment by law," within the meaning of the phrase as used in our statutes; the phrase, as ther......