111 Ind. 54 | Ind. | 1887
Albert D. Lemon, a debtor in embarrassed and failing circumstances, made an assignment of all his property for the benefit of all his creditors. The deed of assignment purports to have been made in pursuance of the statute regulating voluntary assignments. It assumes to make provision for preferring certain of the assignor’s creditors, and requires that those mentioned should be paid
The court sustained a demurrer to the petition and gave judgment, upholding the assignment. The questions involved have all been determined in favor of the ruling below in the recent cases of Henderson v. Pierce, 108 Ind. 462; Pedpath v. Tutewiler, 109 Ind. 248; Seibert v. Milligan, 110 Ind. 106.
The conclusion arrived at in those cases was, that, in the absence of actual fraud, a deed "of assignment, under the statute, will be upheld as a valid, general assignment, notwithstanding a provision that certain creditors shall be preferred. Such a provision will be controlled and annulled by force of the statute.
Judgment affirmed, with costs.