Kerbs v. Ewing
Headnotes
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
McGraby, J.
This case is not different in principle from the case of Martin v. Hausman, 14 Fed. Rep. 160. It is true that in Martin v. TIausman the technical deed of trust, which was construed to be an assignment for the benefit of creditors, was defective as a deed of trust, in having no defeasance clause attached thereto. In this case, the instrument is a deed of trust in proper form. This, however, can make no difference. No matter what the form of the instrument, where *694 a debtor, being insolvent, conveys all bis property to a third party to pay one or more creditors, to the exclusion of others, such a conveyance will be construed to be an assignment for the benefit of all the creditorsxfthe preference being in contravention of the assignment laws of this state. Demurrer overruled.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 3 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.