Smith v. Millett
| Decision Date | 12 February 1878 |
| Parties | HENRY F. SMITH et al. v. THOMAS A. MILLETT et als. |
| Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
A voluntary assignment for the benefit of creditors provided that the dividends of such creditors as did not execute a release within three months from the date of the assignment should be paid to the assignors or their appointees. Certain creditors of the assignors exhausted their remedy at law against the assignors, and filed a bill in equity to establish a lien on the dividends of such non-releasing creditors in the hands of the assignee:
Held that they were entitled to the relief claimed.
Held, further, that the lien on the equitable assets dated from the filing of the bill.
BILL IN EQUITY to establish a lien on certain equitable assets in the hands of the respondent, Millett, as a voluntary assignee. The facts are those already stated in Smith v. Millett and Congdon v. Millett, 11 R.I. 528. After the decision of those cases on the law side of the court this bill was filed by the plaintiffs in them, against Millett, assignee, and his assignors. The respondents demurred to the bill.
A voluntary assignment for the benefit of creditors provided that the dividends of such creditors as did not execute a release within three months from the date of the assignment should be paid to the assignors or their appointees. Certain creditors of the assignors exhausted their remedy at law against the assignors, and filed a bill in equity to establish a lien on the dividends of such nonreleasing creditors in the hands of the assignee. Held, that they were entitled to the relief claimed.
James Tillinghast & William H. Clapp, for complainants.
B. N & S. S. Lapham, for respondents.
This bill is filed by judgment creditors of S. S. Humes & Co. who, having exhausted their remedy at law, now claim relief against certain funds of the said Humes & Co., assignors, in the hands of Millett, the assignee, and which were, by the assignment for the benefit of their creditors made by Humes & Co. to Millett, directed in certain events to be paid over to the assignors.
S. S Humes & Co. made an assignment for the benefit of their creditors to Millett: 1. To pay private indebtedness out of their separate private estates; 2. To pay partnership debts in proportion, & c., provided, that " such of our creditors" as should not within three months from date, June 2, 1874, execute and deliver a full discharge, & c., should receive no dividend; but the dividends on their claims should be paid to the assignors or their...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Artman v. Giles
... ... 115; ... Cooper's Eq. Pl. 445; Bigelow v. Andress, 31 ... Ill. 322; Martin v. Michael, 23 Mo. 50; Southard ... v. Benner, 72 N.Y. 426; Smith v. R.R. Co., 99 ... U.S. 401; Bassett v. St. Albans, 47 Vt. 314; ... Pendleton v. Perkins, 49 Mo. 565; Skeele v ... Stanwood, 33 Me. 309; Barrow v. Bailey, 5 Fla. 9; ... Tate v. Liggat, 2 Leigh (Va.), 84; Smith v ... Millett, 12 R.I. 59; Ferguson v. Bobo, 54 Miss ... 121; McMinn v. Whelan, 27 Cal. 300; McDermott v ... Blois, 1 R.M.C. (Ga.) 281; Uhl v. Dillon, 10 ... ...
-
Merchants' Natl. Bank v. Paine
... ... bona and unsatisfied. In other words, he must show that ... he has entirely exhausted his remedy at law. Smith ... v. Millett, 12 R.I. 59; Freeman on ... Executions, § 427 et sq ... But it ... is claimed that the case made by this bill ... ...
-
In re Mann's
...as it well may be, upon a proper application by a non-releasing creditor, (Brashear v. West, 7 Pet. 609; Smith v. Millett, 11 R.I. 528; 12 R.I. 59,) the would be ordered to pay it over to the assignor as a matter of course. Second. Upon the perfecting of the assignment, -- and to some exten......
-
Baxter v. Moses
...lien effectual. Among the cases sustaining the rule as promulgated in our state are the following: Tappan v. Evans, 11 N. H. 311; Smith v. Millett, 12 R. I. 59; Adee v. Bigler, 81 N. Y. 349; Adsit v. Butler., 87 N. Y. 585. See, also, Haswell v. Lincks, Id. 637; Suydam v. Insurance Co., 51 P......