Wiesenfeld, Stern & Co. v. Stevens & Cureton

Citations

• 15 S.C. 554
• 1881 S.C. LEXIS 107

Syllabus

<p>1. Whether an assignment for the benefit of creditors was executed with intent to defeat, hinder or delay, is a question of fact. The finding by the Circuit judge that there was no such intention in this case, approved.</p> <p>2. A and B, partners'in trade, conveyed each to the other, by exchange, their interest respectively in two lots of land held by thfe partnership, and on the next day made an assignment for the benefit, of their creditors of all the rest of their partnership property, preferring some, and authorizing the trustees to defer sale if to the interest of the creditors, the rents and profits meantime to pass under the assignment. No mention was made of B’s lot, but A’s lot, which contained two acres, was specially reserved as a homestead to 'him. Afterwards A became a bankrupt, and one and two-thirds acres of this lot were assigned to him as a homestead ; and he then obtained his discharge in bankruptcy. Held, that the assignment was rendered fraudulent and void, neither by the preference to some of the creditors.</p> <p>3. Nor by the reservation of A’s lot as a homestead.</p> <p>4. Nor by the authority to postpone the sale.</p> <p>5. And the deed from B to A for this lot could not be canceled in an action brought to set aside the assignment; nor could its validity be questioned by creditors who, by notice, were made parties to the bankrupt proceedings.</p>