Rochford v. Doty

Citations

• 37 Wash. 232
• 79 P. 782
• 1905 Wash. LEXIS 709

Syllabus

<p>Assignment foe Benefit of Ceeditoes — Accounting by Assignee — Action foe — Defenses—Cross-Complaint—Order Directing Suit Against Assignee — Vacation. In an action, against an assignee for tbe benefit of creditors to compel bim to account to bis successor for tbe funds of tbe, estate, affirmative matter in tbe answer, in tbe nature of a cross-complaint, seeking tbe vacation of tbe order of tbe court upon wbicb the suit is founded, is properly struck out on motion, since tbe order directing tbe suit to be brought is not final or binding upon tbe defendant, and is not a bar to any defense be may have to tbe action.</p> <p>Same — Defenses — Pleading — Prior Attachment — Assignee Compelled to Pay foe Property Taken on Claim and Delivery Bond. It is a good defense pro tanto to an action against an assignee for tbe benefit of creditors and bis bondsman, to compel bim to account to bis successor for tbe funds of tbe estate, that a certain part of the insolvent’s estate bad been attached prior to tbe deed of assignment, tbe lien thereafter adjudged valid, and tbe defendant ordered to pay the attaching creditor the value of the property, which defendant, in an endeavor to protect the estate had taken from the sheriff upon a claim and delivery bond; and it is error to sustain a demurrer thereto.</p> <p>Same — Defenses—Plea of Discharge — Collateral Attack. A plea of a final discharge, upon due notice and the allowance of his final account, is a complete defense to an action against an assignee for the benefit of creditors to compel him to account to his successor for the funds of the estate, since it is a bar to further proceedings that cannot be collaterally attacked; and it is error to sustain a demurrer thereto.</p>