Skip to main content
· 4/13/1891

Bock v. Perkins

Citations

  • 139 U.S. 628
  • 11 S. Ct. 677
  • 35 L. Ed. 314
  • 1891 U.S. LEXIS 2418

Syllabus

<p>A marshal of the United States, or his deputies, being sued in trespass for seizing particular property under an attachment, to him directed, and defending upon the ground that the property, so seized, belonged to the defendant named in the writ of attachment, may have the case — the amount in dispute being sufficient — removed to the proper Circuit Court of the United States, as one arising under the laws of the United States.</p> <p>A deed of assignment for the benefit of creditors, recited the indebtedness of the assignor, his inability to pay his debts with punctuality or in full, and his desire to make “ a fair and equitable distribution of his property among all his creditors,” and provided that the assignor “has bargained, sold and assigned, and does hereby grant, convey and assign,” unto the assignee “ all the lands and all the personal property of every name and nature whatsoever of the said party of the first part, more particularly enumerated and described in the schedule hereto annexed, marked Schedule A, or intended so to be. . . . Schedule B, hereto annexed, contains, as near as I can state, a list of all my creditors and the amount of their respective demands, and both of said Schedules A and B are hereby made part of this assignment.” Schedule A, annexed to the assignment, contained an inventory of certain real estate, and a list of persons indebted to the assignor, and was verified by liis oath to the effect that it contained a true list of the assignor’s creditors and the amount of their respective demands. But it contained, no clause or provision which, by any construction, embraced a stock of goods worth about $10,000, and constituting, at the time, the bulk of the assignor’s estate. Held, That the title to these goods did not pass to the assignee, and remained subject to attachment as the property of the assignor. The general description in the assignment of the property conveyed is limited by the particular description immediately' following

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • “The particular description [in the contract] must control the ... general description_”
  • “The particular description [in the contract] must control the ... general description....”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Harlan

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.