O'Kane v. Hyde

California Supreme Court

O'Kane v. Hyde

12 P. 124, 70 Cal. 6, 1886 Cal. LEXIS 709

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedMay 28, 1886

DocketNo. 8361

StatusPublished

This text of 12 P. 124 (O'Kane v. Hyde) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

O'Kane v. Hyde, 12 P. 124, 70 Cal. 6, 1886 Cal. LEXIS 709 (Cal. 1886).

Pincite

Opinion

Myrick, J.

The court below construed the assignment by Daly & Hawkins to O’Kane as an assignment of their individual as well as of their partnership prop[8]*8erty, and as it directed all of the property assigned to be applied to the payment of partnership debts, held the assignment void as thus giving a preference to the partnership creditors over the individual creditors as to the individual property.

We are of opinion this construction is correct, and that the assignment was void as to creditors. The defendant, Hyde, was a debtor of the assignors; the Hibernia Savings and Loan Society was their creditor; as such creditor, it recovered of Hyde, by garnishment proceedings, the amount of its debt due from the assignors. Hyde, by reason of his relation to the society under the garnishment proceedings, and his payment to it under such proceedings, could make inquiry into the legality of the assignment.

We are of opinion that the former action, O’Kane v. Daly & Hawkins, was not, as to the defendant herein or as to the Hibernia Savings and Loan Society, an adjudication as to the validity of the assignment.

Judgment and order affirmed.

Shakpstein, J., Mobbison, C. J., and McKinstby, J., concurred.

Rehearing denied.

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

Myrick, J.

The court below construed the assignment by Daly & Hawkins to O’Kane as an assignment of their individual as well as of their partnership prop[8]*8erty, and as it directed all of the property assigned to be applied to the payment of partnership debts, held the assignment void as thus giving a preference to the partnership creditors over the individual creditors as to the individual property.

We are of opinion this construction is correct, and that the assignment was void as to creditors. The defendant, Hyde, was a debtor of the assignors; the Hibernia Savings and Loan Society was their creditor; as such creditor, it recovered of Hyde, by garnishment proceedings, the amount of its debt due from the assignors. Hyde, by reason of his relation to the society under the garnishment proceedings, and his payment to it under such proceedings, could make inquiry into the legality of the assignment.

We are of opinion that the former action, O’Kane v. Daly & Hawkins, was not, as to the defendant herein or as to the Hibernia Savings and Loan Society, an adjudication as to the validity of the assignment.

Judgment and order affirmed.

Shakpstein, J., Mobbison, C. J., and McKinstby, J., concurred.

Rehearing denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

12 P. 124, 70 Cal. 6, 1886 Cal. LEXIS 709, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/okane-v-hyde-cal-1886.