Morgentham v. Harris
Cases that cite this one
6 later published cases cite this decision.
- Rush v. French (Ariz. 1874)
- Johnson v. J. M. Robinson & Co. (Tex. 1887)
- Miller v. Keegan (Cal. Ct. App. 1949)
- Succession of del Rosario v. Rosaly (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico 1919)
- Sucesión del Rosario v. Rosaly (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico 1919)
- Falero v. Falero (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico 1909)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
delivered the opinion of the Court—Terry, C. J., concurring.
The assignment by Harris to Tandler & Co., was made to secure his indebtedness to them, and there is no pretense that it was fraudulent in fact. Nor was it in contravention of the statute, which prohibits assignments by insolvent debtors for the benefit of creditors. Harris was not insolvent at the time of its execution; at least there is no evidence in the record that he was. If such were the fact, it should have been afSrmatively shown by the appellant who contested the validity of the assignment. His insolvency could not be presumed from the language of the instrument, and the surplus remaining of the proceeds of the goods, after the payment of his debt to Tandler & Co., exceeded the claim of the appellant, who, so far as appears, was his only remaining creditor.
Judgment affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.