Belcher v. Arnold

14 R.I. 613, 1885 R.I. LEXIS 2
Supreme Court of Rhode Island·Decided January 17, 1885·Published

Opinion

Dureee, C. J.

The object of this suit is to have certain conveyances of real estate, executed by William W. Arnold to divers persons, defendants, set aside as void under the statute of fraudulent conveyances, because made with the intent to hinder, delay, and defraud his creditors. The complainants are purchasers of the estates under an execution issued on a judgment recovered in their favor against the said William W. Arnold after the conveyances alleged to be fraudulent were made. The objection is raised that the court has no jurisdiction, because there is an adequate remedy at law. In Beckwith v. Burroughs ante, p. 366, we had occasion to remark that there is a conflict of decision on this point and to cite the cases, but without expressing any definite opinion. Now, however, after further consideration, our conclusion is that the suit is maintainable, the jurisdiction in equity and at law being generally concurrent in cases of fraud. See cases and authorities cited for complainants. 1

*614 Charles Bradley Gceorge B. Barrows, for complainants. John I). Thurston, for respondents.

We have come to the conclusion, on the evidence, that the conveyances complained of ought to be set aside for the reason alleged.

1

As follows:

Snell Principles of Equity, 384 ; 1 Spence Eq. Juris. 625 ; May on Fraudulent and Voluntary Conveyances, 472 ; 1 Story Eq. Juris. § 68; Bennett v. Musgrove, 2 Ves. 51; Colt v. Woollaston, 2 P. Wms. 154; Evans v. Bicknell, 6 Ves. Jun. 173; Slim v. Croucher, 1 De G., F. & J. 518; St. Aubyn v. Smart, L. R. 5 Eq. 183; also on appeal, L. R. 3 Ch. App. 646; Ramshire v. Bolton, L. R. 8 Eq. 294; Hill v. Lane, L. R. 11 Eq. 215; Hartshorn v. Eames, 31 Me. 93; Lillard v. McGee, 4 Bibb, 165; Dodge v. Griswold, 8 N. H. 425; Abbey v. Commercial Bank of New Orleans, 31 Miss. 434; Wampler v. Wampler, 30 Gratt. 454; Crane v. Conklin, 1 N. J. Eq. 346; Lewis v. Cocks, 23 Wall. 466; Gray v. Jenks, 3 Mason, 520; Brown v. Stewart, 56 Md. 421; Bunce v. Gallagher, 5 *614 Blatchf. 481; Flint & P. M. R. R. Co. v. Gordon, 41 Mich. 420; King v. Carpenter, 37 Mich. 363; Eaton v. Trowbridge, 38 Mich. 454; Methodist Church of Newarh v. Clark, 41 Mich. 730; Allen v. Waldo, 47 Mich. 516; Sands v. Codwise, 4 Johns. Rep. 536.

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

Belcher v. Arnold, 14 R.I. 613, 1885 R.I. LEXIS 2 (R.I. 1885).

14 R.I. 613 (Belcher v. Arnold) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Lewis v. Cocks
90 U.S. 466 (Supreme Court, 1874)
Hartshorn v. Eames
31 Me. 93 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1849)
Brown v. Stewart
56 Md. 421 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1881)
King v. Carpenter
37 Mich. 363 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1877)
Eaton v. Trowbridge
38 Mich. 454 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1878)
Flint & Pere Marquette Railway Co. v. Gordon
2 N.W. 648 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1879)
Allen v. Waldo
11 N.W. 366 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1882)
Abbey v. Commercial Bank
31 Miss. 434 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1856)
Wampler v. Wampler
30 Gratt. 454 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1878)
Lillard v. M'Gee
7 Ky. 165 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1815)
Gray v. Jenks
10 F. Cas. 1021 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Maine, 1825)