Rowland v. Coleman
This text of 45 Ga. 204 (Rowland v. Coleman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Our Act of 1865, 1866, authorizes a debtor in failing circumstances to prefer one creditor to another, in an assignment; and so this Court decided in the case of Embry vs. Fishcheser, 38 Georgia Reports, 245. And if this be done, bona fide, it does not make the assignment void, if there be more assigned than will pay the debt. The fact that there may be a surplus in the hands of the assignee, after paying the debt, is not of itself sufficient to make the assignment fraudulent, if the assignment be bona fide: 27 Georgia Reports, 385; 18 Georgia Reports, 668; 7 Georgia Reports, 275; 1 Georgia Reports, 176.
This bill sets up no fact inconsistent with these principles, as attendant upon this assignment. True, there is a general charge that the intent was to defraud, but it is well settled that mere general allegations imputing motives of fraud are not sufficient in any case. There must be facts stated which the Court may see are inconsistent with a fair and bona fide intent.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
45 Ga. 204, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rowland-v-coleman-ga-1872.