Schwab v. Lemon

Indiana Supreme Court

Schwab v. Lemon

12 N.E. 87, 111 Ind. 54, 1887 Ind. LEXIS 208

CourtIndiana Supreme Court

DecidedMay 17, 1887

DocketNo. 12,813

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 12 N.E. 87 (Schwab v. Lemon) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Indiana Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Schwab v. Lemon, 12 N.E. 87, 111 Ind. 54, 1887 Ind. LEXIS 208 (Ind. 1887).

Pincite

Opinion

Mitchell, J.

Albert D. Lemon, a debtor in embarrassed and failing circumstances, made an assignment of all his property for the benefit of all his creditors. The deed of assignment purports to have been made in pursuance of the statute regulating voluntary assignments. It assumes to make provision for preferring certain of the assignor’s creditors, and requires that those mentioned should be paid [55]*55in full. In all other respects the deed conforms to the provisions of the assignment law. The appellants, comprising the firm of Schwab & Bros., filed an intervening petition in the Fountain Circuit Court, in which the matter of the assignment was pending. They set forth that an assignment had been made providing for preferences, and that they were judgment creditors of the assignor, and that their judgment had been recovered since the making of the assignment.- It is conceded that the assignment was made, and that the assignee had taken possession of the property in pursuance of the statute regulating proceedings under the voluntary assignment law. The transaction is assailed solely on the ground that the deed makes - provision that some of the assignor’s creditors should be paid in preference to others, aud that the petitioners are of the unpreferred class. The petition charges that the assignment is for that reason void, and it prays that it may be so adjudged, and that the supposed lien of the petitioners’ judgment may be recognized as valid and binding against the property of the assignor in the hands of the assignee. -

Filed May 17, 1887.

The court sustained a demurrer to the petition and gave judgment, upholding the assignment. The questions involved have all been determined in favor of the ruling below in the recent cases of Henderson v. Pierce, 108 Ind. 462; Pedpath v. Tutewiler, 109 Ind. 248; Seibert v. Milligan, 110 Ind. 106.

The conclusion arrived at in those cases was, that, in the absence of actual fraud, a deed "of assignment, under the statute, will be upheld as a valid, general assignment, notwithstanding a provision that certain creditors shall be preferred. Such a provision will be controlled and annulled by force of the statute.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

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

Mitchell, J.

Albert D. Lemon, a debtor in embarrassed and failing circumstances, made an assignment of all his property for the benefit of all his creditors. The deed of assignment purports to have been made in pursuance of the statute regulating voluntary assignments. It assumes to make provision for preferring certain of the assignor’s creditors, and requires that those mentioned should be paid [55]*55in full. In all other respects the deed conforms to the provisions of the assignment law. The appellants, comprising the firm of Schwab & Bros., filed an intervening petition in the Fountain Circuit Court, in which the matter of the assignment was pending. They set forth that an assignment had been made providing for preferences, and that they were judgment creditors of the assignor, and that their judgment had been recovered since the making of the assignment.- It is conceded that the assignment was made, and that the assignee had taken possession of the property in pursuance of the statute regulating proceedings under the voluntary assignment law. The transaction is assailed solely on the ground that the deed makes - provision that some of the assignor’s creditors should be paid in preference to others, aud that the petitioners are of the unpreferred class. The petition charges that the assignment is for that reason void, and it prays that it may be so adjudged, and that the supposed lien of the petitioners’ judgment may be recognized as valid and binding against the property of the assignor in the hands of the assignee. -

Filed May 17, 1887.

The court sustained a demurrer to the petition and gave judgment, upholding the assignment. The questions involved have all been determined in favor of the ruling below in the recent cases of Henderson v. Pierce, 108 Ind. 462; Pedpath v. Tutewiler, 109 Ind. 248; Seibert v. Milligan, 110 Ind. 106.

The conclusion arrived at in those cases was, that, in the absence of actual fraud, a deed "of assignment, under the statute, will be upheld as a valid, general assignment, notwithstanding a provision that certain creditors shall be preferred. Such a provision will be controlled and annulled by force of the statute.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

12 N.E. 87, 111 Ind. 54, 1887 Ind. LEXIS 208, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schwab-v-lemon-ind-1887.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack