Clayton v. Clark

Citations

• 76 Kan. 832
• 92 P. 1117
• 1907 Kan. LEXIS 333

Syllabus

<p>SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.</p> <p>p Attachment- — Intent to Defraud Creditors- — Affidavit — Proof. W-here an affidavit for a writ of attachment in an action on a claim not due contains but one ground, which reads “that defendants -have ?old, cpnyeyed and disposed of their property and .are causing the same .to be removed out of Gfraham .county for th,e purpose apd with the fraudulent intent to defraud their creditors,” the words “for the purpose and with the fraudulent intent to defraud their creditors” are sufficiently broad to include an intent to-“hinder” and “delay” their creditors; and upon a motion -to dissolve the attachment issued upon such affidayit, fo'r the reason that the specific intent to defraud has not been .established by the .evidence, it is error to allow the motion when it appears that the acts, complained of were done with intent to hinder and delay creditors.</p> <p>:2. -Proof of Intent to Defraud Any Creditor is Sufficient. In such a case it is not necessary to establish a specific intent on the -part of the defendant to defraud, hinder or delay the plaintiff in the collection .of his .debt. If such an intent exists as to any creditor, then any other creditor may have an attachment.</p>