Dudley v. Wilson's Admr.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky

Dudley v. Wilson's Admr.

6 Ky. Op. 35, 1872 Ky. LEXIS 400

DecidedSeptember 19, 1872

StatusPublished

This text of 6 Ky. Op. 35 (Dudley v. Wilson's Admr.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Kentucky primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Dudley v. Wilson's Admr., 6 Ky. Op. 35, 1872 Ky. LEXIS 400 (Ky. Ct. App. 1872).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Judge .Hardin :

The transfer of the note on Sanders to Jonathan Wilson was not, in our opinion, so designed and intended as to operate as a general assignment for the benefit of Smith’s creditors under the act. of 1856. Nor did the circumstances prove, as badges of fraud, in relation to the attachment suit of William Wilson against Smith establish a joint purpose or agreement between those parties, to effect a lien on the property merely in order that Wilson should give preference over other creditors of Smith, in contemplation of the insolvency of Smith. But if the. evidence was such as to give the transaction that effect, as more than six months elapsed between the levy of the attachment and the institution of this suit, the remedy sought was barred by the limitation provisions of the act of 1856.

Wherefore the judgment is affirmed.

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

Opinion by

Judge .Hardin :

The transfer of the note on Sanders to Jonathan Wilson was not, in our opinion, so designed and intended as to operate as a general assignment for the benefit of Smith’s creditors under the act. of 1856. Nor did the circumstances prove, as badges of fraud, in relation to the attachment suit of William Wilson against Smith establish a joint purpose or agreement between those parties, to effect a lien on the property merely in order that Wilson should give preference over other creditors of Smith, in contemplation of the insolvency of Smith. But if the. evidence was such as to give the transaction that effect, as more than six months elapsed between the levy of the attachment and the institution of this suit, the remedy sought was barred by the limitation provisions of the act of 1856.

Wherefore the judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

6 Ky. Op. 35, 1872 Ky. LEXIS 400, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dudley-v-wilsons-admr-kyctapp-1872.