CLARK
v.
BEECHER
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Abraham Clark, a bankrupt, made a fraudulent settlement of property to his wife, and the Circuit Court found the conveyance void but also entered a personal decree against the wife for rents and profits. The Supreme Court affirmed that the conveyance was properly condemned as fraudulent, but reversed the personal decree against the wife as erroneous, holding that such personal liability for rents and profits could not be imposed under the applicable law established in related cases.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice Swayne delivered the opinion of the court.
The bill charges that a fraudulent settlement was made by Abraliam Olat'k, the bankrupt, upon the appellant, his wife. The Circuit Court decreed against her and she brought the case here for review.
Mr. Luther R. Marsh and Mr. W. F. Shepherd for appellant.
Mr. Francis N. Bangs for appellee.
Recently several of these cases in their aspects of both fact and law have been very fully considered by this court.
Each controversy must necessarily depend for its termination upon its own facts and circumstances. The rules of law which apply are well settled. In this case nothing could be gained either to the profession or the parties by going in detail over the facts of the law, however elaborately the work was done.
We, therefore, deem it sufficient to say that we are satisfied with the judgment of the Circuit Court upon the main point brought before it for consideration. We think the conveyance complained of was properly condemned as fraudulent, and, therefore, held'to be void.
But it is equally clear that the personal decree against the appellant for the rents, issues and profits, and the use and occupation of the premises, was erroneous.
Upon this subject it is sufficient to refer to the opinion of this court in the oases of Phipps v. Sedgwick, and of Place v. Sedgwick, 95 U. S. 3, and to the opinion in the United States Trust Company v. Sedgwick, 97 U. S. 304, just delivered.
This case will be remanded to the Circuit Court, with directions to modify the decree in conformity to this opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United States v. Oberlin M. Carter, 217 U.S. 286 (U.S. 1910)
-
Yamashita Kisen Kabushiki Kaisha v. McCormick Intercoastal S. S. Co., 20 F.2d 25 (9th Cir. 1927)…t is her duty, to maintain her course and speed, and she is not to act upon a mere suspicion or surmise that the .approaching vessel will fail to do her duty. The Britannia, 153 U. S. 130, 14 S. Ct. 795, 38 L. Ed. 660; The Northfield, 154 U. S. 629, 14 S. Ct. 1184, 24 L. Ed. 680; The Delaware, 161 U. S. 459, 16 S. Ct. 516, 40 L. Ed. 771. But, as was said in The New York, supra, “the fact that a steamer is entitled to hold her course does not excuse her from inattention to signals, from answering where an answ…
-
Bloomfield S.S. Co. v. Brownsville Shrimp Exch., 243 F.2d 869 (5th Cir. 1957)…uld have had no effect on the collision. S. S. Co. The purpose of the rule requiring the privileged vessel to hold course and speed is to enable the burdened vessel to navigate with assurance as to action of the other. The Northfield, 154 U.S. 629, 14 S.Ct. 1184, 24 L.Ed. 680; New York & Liverpool U. S. Mail v. Rumball, 21 How. 372, 384, 62 U.S. 372, 16 L.Ed. 144. Equivocation or vacillation by the privileged vessel leads to uncertainty and increases, not diminishes, risk of collision. But implicit in thi…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Tr. Co. v. Sedgwick, 97 U.S. 304 (U.S. 1877)
- Phipps v. Sedgwick, 95 U.S. 3 (U.S. 1877)