Reports of Civil and Criminal Cases Decided by the Court of Appeals of Kentucky Volume 102 (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. 1901 edition. Excerpt: ...operated as an assignment, and to administer the estate of the insolvent in the same manner as the estate of a deceased person is administered. To secure the possession, it was essential to make parties to the proceed"ing all persons to whom transfers had been made giving preferences, and it was essential to make complete aver ments as to all such transfers which were made prior to the bringing of the suit; for, otherwise, as distinctly held in Fuqua v. Fer' -ell (R0 Ky., 69), the surrender of the property so transferred could not be compelled. Holding this view as to the scope and meaning of the act, we are of opinion that all transferees, within the statutory period of limitation, were properly parties defendant to the cross-petition of appellants, and were, moreover, necessary parties, if it were intended to subject the property transfer red to them to the process of administration as a part of the ins0lvent's estate. l The 0-bject authorized by the statute to be accomplished is the declaration and administration of a trust embracing all the property of the insolvent debtor for the benefit of all his creditors. The limitation sought to be applied by the appellees, the Western Bank, et al, would result in the declaration and administration of a trust embracing only such property as was transferred to a single creditor, together with property transferred subsequent to the bringing of the suit. Taking the whole statute together, it is impossible to believe that this could have been the legislative intent. As matter of course each of the preferences alleged can not be adjudged to operate as an assignment. but the eariiest preference established within the period of limitation should be so adjudged and the subsequent...

R699

Or split into 4x interest-free payments of 25% on orders over R50
Learn more

Discovery Miles6990
Mobicred@R66pm x 12* Mobicred Info
Free Delivery
Delivery AdviceOut of stock

Toggle WishListAdd to wish list
Review this Item

Product Description

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. 1901 edition. Excerpt: ...operated as an assignment, and to administer the estate of the insolvent in the same manner as the estate of a deceased person is administered. To secure the possession, it was essential to make parties to the proceed"ing all persons to whom transfers had been made giving preferences, and it was essential to make complete aver ments as to all such transfers which were made prior to the bringing of the suit; for, otherwise, as distinctly held in Fuqua v. Fer' -ell (R0 Ky., 69), the surrender of the property so transferred could not be compelled. Holding this view as to the scope and meaning of the act, we are of opinion that all transferees, within the statutory period of limitation, were properly parties defendant to the cross-petition of appellants, and were, moreover, necessary parties, if it were intended to subject the property transfer red to them to the process of administration as a part of the ins0lvent's estate. l The 0-bject authorized by the statute to be accomplished is the declaration and administration of a trust embracing all the property of the insolvent debtor for the benefit of all his creditors. The limitation sought to be applied by the appellees, the Western Bank, et al, would result in the declaration and administration of a trust embracing only such property as was transferred to a single creditor, together with property transferred subsequent to the bringing of the suit. Taking the whole statute together, it is impossible to believe that this could have been the legislative intent. As matter of course each of the preferences alleged can not be adjudged to operate as an assignment. but the eariiest preference established within the period of limitation should be so adjudged and the subsequent...

Customer Reviews

No reviews or ratings yet - be the first to create one!

Product Details

General

Imprint

Rarebooksclub.com

Country of origin

United States

Release date

September 2013

Availability

Supplier out of stock. If you add this item to your wish list we will let you know when it becomes available.

First published

September 2013

Authors

Dimensions

246 x 189 x 11mm (L x W x T)

Format

Paperback - Trade

Pages

200

ISBN-13

978-1-236-93483-3

Barcode

9781236934833

Categories

LSN

1-236-93483-0



Trending On Loot