Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

39 Ark. 66

Teah v. Roth

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided November 15, 1882

Supreme Court of Arkansas · decided 1882-11-15

APPEALS from Sebastian Circuit Court, Fort Smith District. lion. J. H. Rogers, Circuit Judge. The conveyance was an assignment, and not a deed of trust. Crittenden v. Johnson, 11 Ark., 94; 'Hoffman v. Mack-all, 5 Ohio St., 184- The deed was void on its face. Raleigh v. Griffith, 37 Ark., 150. A sale on credit, or at retail, or in any other mode than that prescribed by our statute, renders the assignment void. Raleigh v. Griffith, 37 Ark., 150.

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““In providing for the sale of property, the statute is disregarded in the deed of assignment. The legislature deemed it expedient, as matter of public policy, to require assignees, in general deeds of assignment for the benefit of creditors, to sell all property assigned to them for the payment of debts, at public auction, within one hundred and twenty days after the execution of the bond, etc., on thirty days’ notice of the time and place of sale. The statute prescribes a mode of sale in this state, and dissenting creditors are not bound by a deed made in a direct contravention of a plain provision of the statute.””

quoted by 1 later decision, including Rice v. Frayser

““Smith, J. In these cases the plaintiffs brought actions against the maker of an assignment for the benefit of certain enumerated creditors, and caused attachments to be levied upon portions of the stock of goods assigned. The defendant interposed no defense to the merits, but contested the ground of attachment, which was that he had fraudulently disposed of. her property; the fraud relied upon being tho making of said assignment. The attachments were sustained, and we affirm the judgments below upon tho authority of Raleigh v. Griffith, 37 Ark. 150 .””

quoted by 1 later decision, including Aaronson v. Deutsch

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1882-11-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently March 1902

2 federal appellate ·

20188218901900decided

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.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Smith, J.

¶1In these cases the plaintiffs brought actions against the maker of an assignment for the benefit of certain enumerated creditors, and caused attachments to be levied upon portions of the stock of goods assigned. The defendant interposed no defense to the merits, but contested the ground of attachment, which was, that she had fraudulently disposed of her property, the fraud relied upon being the making of said assignment. The attachments were sustained, and we affirm the judgments below upon the authority of Raleigh v. Griffith, 37 Ark., 150. The deed empowered the assignees to retail the goods privately for twelve months, and then to sell 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.

¶2See, also, Bartlett, Reed & Co. v. Teah, 1 McCrary, 176, where this same deed was before the Federal Circuit Court, and the same conclusion was reached.

/39/ark/66 · .json · Public domain