Apponaug Bleaching, Dyeing, & Printing Co. v. Rawson

Supreme Court of Rhode Island

Apponaug Bleaching, Dyeing, & Printing Co. v. Rawson

46 A. 455, 22 R.I. 123, 1900 R.I. LEXIS 67

DecidedMay 23, 1900

StatusPublished

This text of 46 A. 455 (Apponaug Bleaching, Dyeing, & Printing Co. v. Rawson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Rhode Island primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Apponaug Bleaching, Dyeing, & Printing Co. v. Rawson, 46 A. 455, 22 R.I. 123, 1900 R.I. LEXIS 67 (R.I. 1900).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

(1) We do not think that the transaction set out in the bill was a mortgage, as contended in behalf of the plaintiff, but that, the corporation being insolvent, it was rather a scheme on its part to enforce a settlement with its creditors on its own terms. As such it was clearly fraudulent and void as against creditors, and the complainant is therefore in no position to ask the intervention of the court.

The case of Hudson v. White, 17 R. I. 519, was not a case of a fraudulent conveyance, and the statement alleged to be a dictum was that one not a creditor and being neither grantee nor grantor could not raise that question as to such a conveyance. In the present case the grantor seeks to redeem from the grantee upon a secret trust which he claims operates as a mortgage.

Demurrer'sustained.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

(1) We do not think that the transaction set out in the bill was a mortgage, as contended in behalf of the plaintiff, but that, the corporation being insolvent, it was rather a scheme on its part to enforce a settlement with its creditors on its own terms. As such it was clearly fraudulent and void as against creditors, and the complainant is therefore in no position to ask the intervention of the court.

The case of Hudson v. White, 17 R. I. 519, was not a case of a fraudulent conveyance, and the statement alleged to be a dictum was that one not a creditor and being neither grantee nor grantor could not raise that question as to such a conveyance. In the present case the grantor seeks to redeem from the grantee upon a secret trust which he claims operates as a mortgage.

Demurrer'sustained.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

46 A. 455, 22 R.I. 123, 1900 R.I. LEXIS 67, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/apponaug-bleaching-dyeing-printing-co-v-rawson-ri-1900.