101 Tenn. 450 | Tenn. | 1898
T}ie controlling question in this cause is the validity or invalidity of a general assignment
Now, from this conveyance and schedule, it might perhaps be inferred that some of the property specified in schedule “ A ” would be found at the tannery — that is, such as would ■ make up part of a tannery stock — though it is not so stated expressly. But that all the property was not there is apparent from the conveyance itself, which refers to the stock at the tannery, and adds, “and property elsewhere.” Where the corn, wagon and horse, plows, and hogs are to be found is not stated nor indicated, nor is there any definite description, such as would serve to identify them, given to enable the assignee or others to locate them.
We think this objection is fatal to the assignment. There must be such a description as will enable the assignee to take possession, and, if he really has possession delivered, it must be so definite as to description and location as that creditors, as well as the assignee, may know when it has all been taken charge of. We think the case falls fairly under the rule in Scheibler v. Mundinger, 2 Pickle, 674. It cannot suffice to do away with a sufficient description, location, and identification, to say that the property is or has been delivered to the assignee. If this were so, then the schedule would not be at all necessary, but the debtor could simply say, ‘ ‘ all his property, all of which he had delivered to the
We are of opinion there _ is no error in the decree of the Court of Chancery Appeals, and it is affirmed.
We may add that schedule “B” is also wholly insufficient in its description of the accounts and persons owing them.
It is said the Court of Chancery Appeals, after holding the conveyance void, should have given the debtor such property as is exempt to mechanics. This exception and claim is made for the first time in this Court, and cannot be available now.