Slicer v. Palmer

Court of Appeals of Kentucky

Slicer v. Palmer

4 Ky. Op. 594, 1870 Ky. LEXIS 435

DecidedSeptember 23, 1870

StatusPublished

This text of 4 Ky. Op. 594 (Slicer v. Palmer) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Kentucky primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Slicer v. Palmer, 4 Ky. Op. 594, 1870 Ky. LEXIS 435 (Ky. Ct. App. 1870).

Pincite

Opinion

John N. Warren, an insolvent contractor for tbe partial construction of the Maysville railroad, being indebted to Thomas A. Palmer for five carts, mortgaged them to William P. Price to secure, and also to the appellant, A. C. Slicer, by separate deeds for securing distinct debts to each.

On Palmer’s petition, charging that each mortgage was made to secure an antecedent debt and for the purpose of preferring those creditors, and therefore claiming distribution, the circuit court decreed a sale and pro rata payment of all the creditors. The appellant, Slicer, showing that a portion of his debt was contracted simultaneously with and on the faith of the mortgage, claims a reversal on that ground.

But, as the residue of the integral consideration was a preexisting debt, his defense is unavailing.

Wherefore, the judgment is affirmed on Sliver’s appeal.

And as Palmer -held no lien and even a fraudulent purchase from him by Warren did not affect the mortgages as purchasers without notice, the judgment is affirmed also on his cross-appeal.

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

John N. Warren, an insolvent contractor for tbe partial construction of the Maysville railroad, being indebted to Thomas A. Palmer for five carts, mortgaged them to William P. Price to secure, and also to the appellant, A. C. Slicer, by separate deeds for securing distinct debts to each.

On Palmer’s petition, charging that each mortgage was made to secure an antecedent debt and for the purpose of preferring those creditors, and therefore claiming distribution, the circuit court decreed a sale and pro rata payment of all the creditors. The appellant, Slicer, showing that a portion of his debt was contracted simultaneously with and on the faith of the mortgage, claims a reversal on that ground.

But, as the residue of the integral consideration was a preexisting debt, his defense is unavailing.

Wherefore, the judgment is affirmed on Sliver’s appeal.

And as Palmer -held no lien and even a fraudulent purchase from him by Warren did not affect the mortgages as purchasers without notice, the judgment is affirmed also on his cross-appeal.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

4 Ky. Op. 594, 1870 Ky. LEXIS 435, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/slicer-v-palmer-kyctapp-1870.