Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Merillat Vs. Hensey

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • May 15, 1911

Citation network · 7-day free trial

Brief every cited case in minutes

Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

28 entries 2 linked 26 unlinked
Show
  1. Huntley Vs. Kingman US Supreme Court · Apr 02, 1894
  2. Lukins Vs. Aird US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1867
  3. U.S. 333 (1911) U.S. Supreme Court Merillat v. Hensey
    Search
  4. U.S. 333 (1911) Merillat v. Hensey
    Search
  5. in cases provided by statute, does not render it illegal or criminal to prefer one creditor above another. Huntley v. Kingman
    Search
  6. that, on one side, it is neither immoral nor illegal for a failing debtor to prefer one creditor over another. Huntley v. Kingman
    Search
  7. purpose, or the existence of a surplus. There are New York cases which seem to go so far, and perhaps others. Goodrich v. Downs
    Search
  8. Barney v. Griffin
    Search
  9. Curtis v. Leavitt
    Search
  10. Collomb v. Caldwell
    Search
  11. N.Y. 486. But the same court, in Leitch v. Hollister
    Search
  12. transaction void, whether the reservation be in or out of the instrument, has not been generally accepted. Muchmore v. Budd
    Search
  13. N.J.L. 369, where many cases are cited, among them being Rahn v. McElrath
    Search
  14. Floyd & Co. v. Smith
    Search
  15. Ely v. Hair
    Search
  16. Didier v. Patterson
    Search
  17. Va. 534. In Huntley v. Kingman
    Search
  18. and is no evidence of a fraudulent intent. This was the ruling of the Court of Appeals of New York in Leitch v. Hollister
    Search
  19. when secretly secured -- such benefit to the assignor being presumed a prime purpose of the conveyance. Lukins v. Aird
    Search
  20. Wall. 79. Other cases are considered and reviewed in Huntley v. Kingman
    Search
  21. and the law could but assign to such conveyance the intent which must indubitably appear from the facts. Edgell v. Hart
    Search
  22. U.S. Supreme Court Merillat v. Hensey
    Search
  23. Goodrich v. Downs
    Search
  24. Leitch v. Hollister
    Search
  25. Muchmore v. Budd
    Search
  26. Rahn v. McElrath
    Search
  27. In Huntley v. Kingman
    Search
  28. Edgell v. Hart
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial