Riley's Law Cases, Exclusive of Those Published in 3D Hill's Law Reports; And Riley's Chancery Cases, Exclusive of Those Published in 2D Hill's Chancery Reports [1836-1837] Republished by Order of the Legislature, with Corrections, Notes (Paperback)

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. 1860 edition. Excerpt: ... we should aflirm those decrees upon a clear conviction of their correctness. And to show this, will dispose of all the other grounds of appeal. It appears to me that counsel have embarrassed themselves, and involved the case in obscurity, by taking for granted that the complainants in the case of Smith v. Pedrieau are creditors, who by their diligence have obtained payment in part of their debts, and are called upon to refund. They were not creditors of Withers in the ordinary sense of the word. They were creditors of Micheau, and these creditors had all the rights which Micheau himself could have had in the fund, if the land had been sold for partition, and no other. This is too plain for illustration. The decree of 1822, did not declare George and Savage Smith entitled to ten-fifteenths of the land, but all the creditors of Micheau. And if the debt of Butler, which had priority, had exhausted that portion of the proceeds of the land, the Smiths would not have been entitled to one cent. All the creditors together stand in the place of_Micheau, and any thing received by either of them must, in making a distribution, be debited to his share. The decree of 1822, declares the creditors entitled to ten-fifteenths of the entire proceeds of the sale, and Pedrieau and wife to two-fifteenths. What were those entire proceeds? Plainly the amounts paid by Withers to Butler and Smith, and Mr. Hunt s bond; besides, the shares of Buford and wife, which are regarded as paid to them in full. The accidental circumstance of Withers insolvency can make no difference. All the owners of the land were entitled to their fair proportions of what he was 95 found able to pay, and the case must stand as if the land had sold for no more than that, and...