Walker & Co. v. Stone

Supreme Court of Iowa

Walker & Co. v. Stone

30 N.W. 39, 70 Iowa 103

CourtSupreme Court of Iowa

DecidedOctober 28, 1886

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 30 N.W. 39 (Walker & Co. v. Stone) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Iowa primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Walker & Co. v. Stone, 30 N.W. 39, 70 Iowa 103 (iowa 1886).

Pincite

Opinion

Adams, Ch. J.

The plaintiffs are creditors of the defendant W. E. Stone, who, in February, 1886, made an assignment to the defendant Gemmill. They brought this action to set aside the assignment, and to restrain the assignee, Gemmill, from proceeding under it. They averred that the assignment was made by Stone for the purpose of defrauding his creditors, and set out in what the fraud consisted. The answer of Stone and Gemmill denies the fraud. In Stewart v. Johnson, 44 Iowa, 435, it was said: “The general rule, doubtless, is that where all the material allegations of a petition for an injunction are fully and satisfactorily denied in the answer, upon the personal knowledge of the defendant, the preliminary injunction, if one has been allowed, will be dissolved upon motion. But to this rule there are some exceptions, and one of them is where the gravamen of the [105]*105petition is fraud.” Citing Sinnett v. Moles, 38 Iowa, 25, and Dent v. Summerlin, 12 Ga., 5. It was also beld that tlie ruling of a court continuing a preliminary injunction to tlie bearing is largely a matter of discretion, and not to be reversed unless there has been an abuse of discretion.

We cannot, in the case at bar, say that there has been an abuse of discretion. The ruling, therefore, continuing the injunction to the heai'ing cannot be disturbed. Gemmill’s functions as assignee having been suspended, on the allegation that the assignment was void, he could not, we think, during such suspension, properly be charged with any duty in relation to the property-, and the court, we think, did not err in appointing a receiver.

AFFIRMED.

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

Adams, Ch. J.

The plaintiffs are creditors of the defendant W. E. Stone, who, in February, 1886, made an assignment to the defendant Gemmill. They brought this action to set aside the assignment, and to restrain the assignee, Gemmill, from proceeding under it. They averred that the assignment was made by Stone for the purpose of defrauding his creditors, and set out in what the fraud consisted. The answer of Stone and Gemmill denies the fraud. In Stewart v. Johnson, 44 Iowa, 435, it was said: “The general rule, doubtless, is that where all the material allegations of a petition for an injunction are fully and satisfactorily denied in the answer, upon the personal knowledge of the defendant, the preliminary injunction, if one has been allowed, will be dissolved upon motion. But to this rule there are some exceptions, and one of them is where the gravamen of the [105]*105petition is fraud.” Citing Sinnett v. Moles, 38 Iowa, 25, and Dent v. Summerlin, 12 Ga., 5. It was also beld that tlie ruling of a court continuing a preliminary injunction to tlie bearing is largely a matter of discretion, and not to be reversed unless there has been an abuse of discretion.

We cannot, in the case at bar, say that there has been an abuse of discretion. The ruling, therefore, continuing the injunction to the heai'ing cannot be disturbed. Gemmill’s functions as assignee having been suspended, on the allegation that the assignment was void, he could not, we think, during such suspension, properly be charged with any duty in relation to the property-, and the court, we think, did not err in appointing a receiver.

AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

30 N.W. 39, 70 Iowa 103, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/walker-co-v-stone-iowa-1886.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack