Petition of Wheelock

Supreme Court of Rhode Island

Petition of Wheelock

28 A. 966, 18 R.I. 463, 1894 R.I. LEXIS 21

DecidedJanuary 29, 1894

StatusPublished

This text of 28 A. 966 (Petition of Wheelock) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Rhode Island primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Petition of Wheelock, 28 A. 966, 18 R.I. 463, 1894 R.I. LEXIS 21 (R.I. 1894).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

We are of the opinion that the assignment by George O. Johnson and Daniel. A. White, as set forth in the petition, was ineffectual to dissolve the attachment on the property of the firm of George O. Johnson & Co. by James Rothwell & Oo. Pub. Stat. R. I. cap. 231, seems to contemplate as within its provisions only insolvents who are residents of the State. In Phillips v. Newton, 12 R. I. 489, it was held that under Pub. Laws R. I. cap. 123, of which cap. 231, §§ 11-15, ll, 19-21 are a reenactment, that this court had no jurisdiction to appoint a receiver of the estate of an insolvent debtor unless at the time • of filing the petition the debtor was a resident of the State. Again, § 12 makes it necessary to the dissolution of an attachment that the assignment, according to its provisions, shall be recorded in the records of the town or city where the assignor resides, or where his real estate is situated. Alves v. Barber, 17 R. I. 712. A compliance with this requirement, so far as the non-resident partner, White, is concerned, is impossible.

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

Per Curiam.

We are of the opinion that the assignment by George O. Johnson and Daniel. A. White, as set forth in the petition, was ineffectual to dissolve the attachment on the property of the firm of George O. Johnson & Co. by James Rothwell & Oo. Pub. Stat. R. I. cap. 231, seems to contemplate as within its provisions only insolvents who are residents of the State. In Phillips v. Newton, 12 R. I. 489, it was held that under Pub. Laws R. I. cap. 123, of which cap. 231, §§ 11-15, ll, 19-21 are a reenactment, that this court had no jurisdiction to appoint a receiver of the estate of an insolvent debtor unless at the time • of filing the petition the debtor was a resident of the State. Again, § 12 makes it necessary to the dissolution of an attachment that the assignment, according to its provisions, shall be recorded in the records of the town or city where the assignor resides, or where his real estate is situated. Alves v. Barber, 17 R. I. 712. A compliance with this requirement, so far as the non-resident partner, White, is concerned, is impossible.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

28 A. 966, 18 R.I. 463, 1894 R.I. LEXIS 21, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/petition-of-wheelock-ri-1894.