Metcalf v. Arnold

110 Ala. 180
CourtSupreme Court of Alabama
DecidedNovember 15, 1895
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 110 Ala. 180 (Metcalf v. Arnold) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Metcalf v. Arnold, 110 Ala. 180 (Ala. 1895).

Opinion

BRICKELL, O'. J.

The demurrer was properly overruled. The bill is not, as is supposed by several of the causes of demurrer, a bill assailing collaterally the incorporation of the Metcalf Drug Company and seeking a forfeiture of its charter. It is a bill by judgment creditors , seeking the aid of a court of equity to remove obstacles and hindrances to the enforcement of their judgments, which the judgment debtors have fraudulently interposed. Whatever may be the character of the obstacle or hindrance; whatever may be the scheme or device to which the debtor resorts, it lies within the province of a court of equity to remove it. The formation of a corporation, investing it with the legal title to all the property and rights of property of the judgment debtors, and parcelling out the stock of the corporation to the debtors and their wives, may be a new device for hindering, delaying and defrauding creditors. The novelty of the device is not of consequence; the fraud of [185]*185its conception and consummation vitiates it, as fraud vitiates all transactions tainted with it. The bill does pray that the formation of the corporation be deemed fraudulent and void as to the complainants. Such a decree would be proper in granting to the complainants the full measure of relief to which they are entitled, if the allegations of the bill be true. But it would not work a forfeiture of the charter, or a dissolution of the corporation; it would simply be ancillary to the divestiture of the title to the property, liable to the debts of the complainants, with which it had been invested by the judgment debtors.

Let the decree of the chancellor be affirmed*

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

Related

Morris v. MacIone
546 So. 2d 969 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1989)
Hewett v. Continental Supply of Huntsville, Inc.
127 So. 2d 834 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1961)
Davenport & Harris Funeral Homes v. Kennedy
11 So. 2d 379 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1943)
Birmingham Trust & Savings Co. v. Shelton
163 So. 593 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1935)
Harris v. First Nat. Bank of Tuscumbia
149 So. 86 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1933)
Florida Brogdex Distributors, Inc. v. Hulsey
138 So. 728 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1931)
In re Braus
248 F. 55 (Second Circuit, 1917)
Dothan Lumber Co. v. Bell Lumber Co.
69 So. 419 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1915)
Byrne & Hammer Dry Goods Co. v. Willis-Dunn Co.
121 N.W. 620 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1909)
Metcalf v. Arnold
32 So. 763 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1902)
Hinkley v. Reed
82 Ill. App. 60 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1899)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
110 Ala. 180, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/metcalf-v-arnold-ala-1895.