Jaffray v. McGehee’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

13 federal appellate · 2 district · 4 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The question presented is,therefore, this: Is an assignment for the benefit of creditors, which authorizes the assignee to violate the provisions of the statute regulating such assignments, valid and binding on the creditors of the assignor? The contention of the appellant is that the assignment is valid, (1) because the discretion given the assignee by the assignment leaves him at liberty to follow the law; and (2) because, even if the assignment required him to administer the trust in a manner different from that prescribed by the law, only such directions as conflicted with the law would be void, and the assignment itself would remain valid. We think that under the construction given the assignment law by the supreme court of Arkansas in Raleigh v. Griffith, 37 Ark. 150 , these positions cannot be maintained. The effect of this decision — and there is no other decision of that court in conflict therewith — is that the provisions of the statute respecting the sale of property assigned for the benefit of creditors are mandatory and not directory. It follows that the assignment, which vests the assignee with a discretion contrary to the mandates of the statute, and in effect authorizes him to sell the property conveyed thereby in a method not permitted by the statute, must be void; for contracts and conveyances in contravention of the terms or policy of a statute will not be sanctioned. Peck v. Burr, 10 N. Y. 294 ; Macgregor v. Dover & D. Ry. Co. 18 Q. B. 618; Jackson v. Dav”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Rice v. Frayser

2. ““The deed empowered the assignees to retail the goods privately for twelve months, and then to soli the remnant by public auction. This is in contravention of our statute of assignments, which directs a public sale within one hundred and twenty days after the assignee takes upon himself the execution of the trusts of the assignment. And the legal effect is to avoid the deed, as against non-assenting creditors.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Rice v. Frayser