Eldredge Brewing Co. v. Cocheco Bottling Co.
This text of 104 A. 453 (Eldredge Brewing Co. v. Cocheco Bottling Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of New Hampshire primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
The plaintiffs are creditors of the defendants and they contend that the assignment is void as to them because of Laws 1909, c. 69, s. 1. While an assignment like the one in question may be a sale for some purposes (Kenefick v. Perry, 61 N. H. 362; McGreenery v. Murphy, 76 N. H. 338; Clough v. Glines, 77 N. H. 408; Goodrich v. Woodsome, 78 N. H. 488) it is not a sale within the *42 ordinary meaning of that term. This tends to the conclusion that such transactions are not void under the provisions of s. 1. The fact such a transaction tends rather to prevent than to promote 'the evil at which that section is aimed, — that peculiar to merchants selling their stock in trade in order to defraud their creditors, —also tends to the conclusion that such an assignment is not a sale within the meaning of that term as it is used in this section. In fact sail the evidence points to this conclusion. It must be held, therefore, that the attachment of the trust property was illegal.
Case discharged.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
104 A. 453, 79 N.H. 41, 1918 N.H. LEXIS 13, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eldredge-brewing-co-v-cocheco-bottling-co-nh-1918.