Lamb & Mathis v. Radcliff

Supreme Court of Georgia

Lamb & Mathis v. Radcliff

28 Ga. 520

Supreme Court of Georgia·Decided June 15, 1859·Published

Opinion

By the Court.

Lumpkin, J.,

delivering the opinion.

We are unable to distinguish this, from, the cases of Norton vs. Cobb, (20 Ga. Rep., 44,) and Watkins vs. Jenks & Ogden, (24 Ga. Rep., 431). This transfer, like the two in those cases, is an. assignment in trust to a certain preferred creditor by an insolvent debtor; the very thing prohibited by the act of 1818.

Judgment affirmed.

Judge Stephens absent, on account of the illness of one of his children.

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

By the Court.

Lumpkin, J.,

delivering the opinion.

We are unable to distinguish this, from, the cases of Norton vs. Cobb, (20 Ga. Rep., 44,) and Watkins vs. Jenks & Ogden, (24 Ga. Rep., 431). This transfer, like the two in those cases, is an. assignment in trust to a certain preferred creditor by an insolvent debtor; the very thing prohibited by the act of 1818.

Judgment affirmed.

Judge Stephens absent, on account of the illness of one of his children.

Lamb & Mathis v. Radcliff, 28 Ga. 520 (Ga. 1859).

Pincite

28 Ga. 520 (Lamb & Mathis v. Radcliff) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related