Wright v. Lee

Citations

• 10 S.D. 263
• 72 N.W. 895
• 1897 S.D. LEXIS 54

Syllabus

<p>1. A decision of the supreme court on appeal is the law of the case on a subsequent appeal.</p> <p>2. The supreme court will not amend a bill of exceptions to conform to an affidavit, as it is without jurisdiction to change the record certified on appeal.</p> <p>3. After defendants had seized and sold under execution all the assets of a corporation that wore in the hands of the assignee for the benefit of creditors, except two tracts of land, the-fact that the assignee’s relative bought one of said tracts at a sum less than its estimated value, under a foreclosure of a mortgage executed by said corporation, and bought the other tract at a tax foreclosure sale, is not proof that the assignment was void in its inception, as being fraudulently executed for the benefit of the assignee.</p> <p>4. An assignment free from fraud in its inception is not invalidated by subsequent fraudulent acts.</p> <p>5. Horses, cattle and machinery were assigned for the benefit of creditors; and immediately thereafter the assignee moved into the ranch house, and placed a foreman in charge, and told the furnisher of food to continue the account, and he would pay the same. The property was all placed in barns, and he nailed up some doors, and put locks on all the others. Held, that the assignment was “accompanied by an immediate delivery and followed by an actual and continued change of possession, ” as required by Comp. Laws, § 4657.</p> <p>6. The court should charge- that an assignment for the benefit of creditors was “accompanied by an immediate delivery and followed by an actual and continued change of possession,” as required by Comp. Laws, § 4657, where there is undisputed evidence sufficient in law to justify such a conclusion, in view of Comp. Laws, § 4659, excepting cases within Section 4657 from the, proposition that the “question of fraudulent intent is one of fact and not of law.”</p> <p>7. The error of charging- that, if an assignee for the benefit of creditors had possession