Hackett v. Leominster National Bank

44 A. 393, 68 N.H. 274
CourtSupreme Court of New Hampshire
DecidedJune 5, 1895
StatusPublished

This text of 44 A. 393 (Hackett v. Leominster National Bank) 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.

Bluebook
Hackett v. Leominster National Bank, 44 A. 393, 68 N.H. 274 (N.H. 1895).

Opinion

*275 Wallace, J.

“All payments, pledges, mortgages, conveyances, sales, and transfers made within that time [three months] the eifect of which if held valid would be to diminish the property available to the creditors . . . which were made to satisfy or secure a previously existing debt . . . shall be void.” P. 8., ■c. 201, s. 26. The statute, in its design to prevent preference and to compel an equal distribution of the debtor’s assets among his creditors, forbids his satisfying or securing a previously existing debt within three months of the beginning of the insolvency proceedings. This transaction was a pledge by Hollins of the bank stock and bond to secure his indebtedness to the Leominster National Bank. If held valid, it will diminish the property available to the creditors of his insolvent estate. The pledge being made less than three months before the beginning of the insolvency proceedings, to secure a previously existing debt, is void by the express terms of the statute. Leavitt v. Lovering, 64 N. H. 607.

Decree for the plaintiff.

All concurred.

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

Related

Leavitt v. Lovering
15 A. 414 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1888)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
44 A. 393, 68 N.H. 274, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hackett-v-leominster-national-bank-nh-1895.