This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can usually download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1835 edition. Excerpt: ... 491. In Armstrong 1: . Byrne,1 in the Vice Chancellor's Court of New York, the assignment declared, that--as a condition of receiving a dividend--the creditors should release the balance of their debts; and also that any creditor not receiving his dividend and giving a discharge within five days after ...
Read More
This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can usually download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1835 edition. Excerpt: ... 491. In Armstrong 1: . Byrne,1 in the Vice Chancellor's Court of New York, the assignment declared, that--as a condition of receiving a dividend--the creditors should release the balance of their debts; and also that any creditor not receiving his dividend and giving a discharge within five days after notice of the dividend, should be precluded from the benefit of the assignment, and the whole of the property was then to be divided among those creditors. This was considered, by Vice Chancellor Mo CoUN, as an attempt to coerce creditors into terms which the debtor chooses to prescribe, and that it entirely vitiated the assignment. He considered the beforementioned case, of Hyslop 0. Clarke, as decisive of the case before him. ' Armstrong v. Byrne, 1 Edwards' Chan. Rep. 79. In the case of Lentilhon v. Moffat,1 in the same State, and before the same Court, where a debtor assigned part of his property, the stipulation was, that if all the creditors do not accept of the assignment within sixty days, and execute a release, then the debtor has power to appoint so much of the property as may not be accepted, to such creditors as he may think proper. 'Rhe Vice Chancellor considered that the cases generally were not like theone under consideration; and alluded to the fact that the assigner, in the present assignment, had created no trust in favor of himself, either express or implied, --but had only reserved the power of disposition among such and so many of his creditors as he might designate. It was held that such J an assignment hindered and delayed creditors, and was void. But the Vice Chancellor.remarked--"I do not wish to be understood as saying, that the law will not, in any case or under any circumstances, permit the...
Read Less