McNeil

McNeil v. Hansen

Good Law
115 Cal. 214·1896 Cal. LEXIS 996·46 P. 1065
Supreme Court of CaliforniaDecember 7, 1896S. F. No. 486California1,001 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

McFarland, J.

After plaintiff had introduced his evidence and rested, the court granted a nonsuit and rendered judgment for defendant. Plaintiff appeals from the judgment and from an order denying his motion for a new trial.

We see no reason for disturbing the judgment. C. G. White filed his petition in insolvency on October 3, 1891, and in December following appellant was appointed his assignee. This action was commenced in February, 1893, to cancel and set aside certain sales of personal property and certain conveyances of real property made by said White to respondent on February 17, *216 1891—nearly eight months before the filing of the said petition in insolvency, and two years before the commencement of this action—and to account for and pay to appellant all moneys "which he had received from sales of part of the property which he had received from White—which moneys he had paid to White’s creditors. Respondent contends that the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action; and the contention is, no doubt, difficult to answer. There are uncertainties and inconsistencies in the complaint; there is no showing in it that any of the creditors of White are…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.