Kinney v. Paine

68 Miss. 258
Mississippi Supreme Court·Decided October 15, 1890·Published·Cited by 8 cases

Opinion

Campbell, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

The claim that there was undue delay in presenting the bill of exchange for payment is disposed of by the evidence, and is not maintainable.

• Section 1300 of the code has no place in a contest between creditors of the common debtor, \vho used or acquired the property which is the subject of contest. It makes property subject to creditors in the state of case prescribed, but has no application as between creditors.

The claim of a bona fide purchase is not predicable of the debt due from Carroll (which was a mere book account) to the bank, and the dealing between the attaching creditors who exhibited their bill in chancery and the non-attaching creditors and Gattman & Co., in which $6135.00 was paid, could have no effect whatever on the rights of Kinney & Co., who, in the view of a court of equity, remained the real owners of the claim on Carroll sent to Gattman & Co. for collection, and entitled to pursue it through all the devious ways disclosed.

Reversed and remanded.

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

Kinney v. Paine, 68 Miss. 258 (Mich. 1890).

68 Miss. 258 (Kinney v. Paine) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Dorsey v. Latham
11 So. 2d 897 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1943)
Love v. Meridian Grain & Elevator Co.
139 So. 857 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1932)
Love v. J. W. Jones & Son
139 So. 162 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1932)
Love v. Federal Land Bank
127 So. 720 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1930)
Edwards v. Lewis
124 So. 746 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1929)
Campbell Paint & Varnish Co. v. Hall
95 So. 641 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1923)
Billingsley v. Pollock
69 Miss. 759 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1892)