United States v. Hoyt
Opinion of the Court
The plaintiffs are .entitled to charge the assignees as their trustees, and to compel the application of the property assigned, to the satisfaction of their judgment, as the property proceeded from the debtor and was designed to be a counter security against the demand now in judgment. The assignees did not receive it in their own right, but as the means of satisfying the debt in question, whenever it should become fixed. On these facts, a trust was created by implication of law, which a court of equity will execute, either by subjecting the property directly to a seizure on execution. or by compelling the trustees to dispose of it under the supervision of the court, with a view to the appropriation of its proceeds towards the payment of the judgment.
The conveyance made by Hoyt to the trustees was a voluntary assignment, to which the plaintiffs were neither parties nor privies, and was intended as an indemnity to the sureties on Hoyt’s official bond. It was revocable by the assignor, with their assent, at least until notice of it had been communicated to the plaintiffs and they had affirmed it. Because, where a person without the privity of his creditors, and without consideration, makes a disposition of his property as between himself and trustees, for the payment of his debts, he is regarded as merely directing the mode in which his own property shall be applied for his own benefit, and the creditors named in the instrument are
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.