Sanderson v. McIntosh (1884) · DecisionDepot

Sanderson v. McIntosh

Name: California Superior Court Tentative Rulings
Creator: DecisionDepot
License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

California Supreme Court Feb 8, 1884 No. No. 8,977Published

Before: Myrick

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the remedy provided to creditors under insolvency laws is not exclusive and that courts of equity maintain jurisdiction to compel an assignee to account for assigned property.

Issues

Whether the remedy provided under insolvency laws is exclusive for creditors seeking to compel an assignee to account for property.

Disposition. Reversed and remanded

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“the remedy afforded creditors under the law regulating insolvency proceedings is not exclusive, but that courts of equity have jurisdiction.”

Synopsis

Insolvency—Assignee—Equity Jubisdiction—A court of equity .has jurisdiction to compel an assignee in insolvency to execute his trust, and account for the property assigned to him. The remedy afforded creditors under the law regulating insolvency proceedings is not exclusive.

Myrick, J. This action was brought to compel an assignee in insolvency to perform his trust and account for the property assigned. The court below gave judgment of nonsuit on the ground that the plaintiff had mistaken his remedy. We are of opinion that the remedy afforded creditors under the law regulating insolvency proceedings is not exclusive, but that courts of equity have jurisdiction.

Judgment reversed and cause remanded for a new trial.

Thornton, J., and Sharpstein, J., concurred.

Sanderson v. McIntosh

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief