Randolph's v. Quidnick Co.

Citations

• 135 U.S. 457
• 10 S. Ct. 655
• 34 L. Ed. 200
• 1890 U.S. LEXIS 2032

Syllabus

<p>A court of equity will not lend its aid to enforce a sale of property under execution where the disproportion between the value of the property sold and the sum paid for it is sp great as to shock the conscience.</p> <p>Where a debtor, having large and scattered properties and being much embarrassed, transfers his property for the. benefit of his creditors equally, equity requires that any creditor who is not satisfied with the provisions of such transfer should act promptly in challenge thereof, or else be adjudged to have waived any right of challenge.</p> <p>When the highest courts of two States arrive at different conclusions respecting the validity of an assignment by an insolvent debtor of ,all his property for the benefit of creditors, this court is inclined in matters of doubt, to give the preference to the ruling of the court of the State in which the insolvent resided, where the conveyance was executed, and where the bulk of the property is situated.</p> <p>S., a citizen of Rhode Island engaged in. business there, with large properties in that State and with property in Connecticut, being embarrassed, made an assignment in 1873 of all his property for the benefit of his creditors; which assignment, being assailed in the courts of each State, was upheld by the Supreme Court of Rhode Island as to the property there, and invalidated by the Supreme Court of Connecticut as to the property there. Meanwhile in the execution of its provisions, large transactions took place and extensive rights were created, In 1875 i creditor commenced suit against S., and in 1882, attached in that action property of the value of $500,000 which had belonged to S. before the assignment, and having obtained execution, levied- upon it and sold it under execution for the sum of $275. The purchaser filed a bill in equity to enforce the purchase; Held,</p> <p>(1) That the disproportion between the sum paid and the value of the property purchased was too great to warrant a court of eq