Morgentham v. Harris
MORGENTHAM v. HARRIS
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Stephen J. Field (author)
Analysis
No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.
Opinion — Field
Field, J., delivered the opinion of the Court—Terry, C. J., concurring.
The assignment by Harris to Tandler & Co., was made to secure his indebtedness to them, and there is no pretense that it was fraudulent in fact. Nor was it in contravention of the statute, which prohibits assignments by insolvent debtors for the benefit of creditors. Harris was not insolvent at the time of its execution; at least there is no evidence in the record that he was. If such were the fact, it should have been afSrmatively shown by the appellant who contested the validity of the assignment. His insolvency could not be presumed from the language of the instrument, and the surplus remaining of the proceeds of the goods, after the payment of his debt to Tandler & Co., exceeded the claim of the appellant, who, so far as appears, was his only remaining creditor.
Judgment affirmed.
Cited by
- Miller v. Keegan Civ. 16699 · 1949-07-15