22 F.1d 693 - Kerbs v. Ewing — 22 F. 693

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 1946

2 federal appellate ·

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

¶1Assignment for Benefit of Oueditobs — Missouri Statute — Deed of Tiujst for Benefit of Certain Creditors.

¶2No matter what the form of the instrument, where a debtor in Missouri, being insolvent, conveys all ol' his property, to a third party to pay ono or moro creditors, to the exclusion of others, such a conveyance will be construed to bo an assignment for the benefit of all liis creditors; the preference being in contravention of the assignment, laws of t1”1 state.

¶3Demurrer to Bill of Complaint.

¶4Scott é Taylor, for plaintiffs.

¶5Karnes é Ess and Adams é Stuebrnrauch, for defendants.

¶6McGraby, J.

¶7This 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 *694a 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.