The Portland daily press., 1898-05-28
FROM THE LAW COURT.
These Rescripts Were Received by the
Clerk Yesterday.

kennebec, SIS.
Gardiner Savings Institution il equity
for interpleader, VS.. Daniel w. Emerson
and Fred Emery Bean, Administrator.
Savage, jim cases of interpleader, the
money should be paid into court, and If
an interpleaders be awarded, a decree
sh ould he made discharging the plaintiff
from all liability to either party, and
directing the claimants to interplead.
Thereby the court takes jurisdiction,
and retains the possession and control of
the fund, and the plaintiff ceases to be a
party to the litigation. In this case, the
proceedings have been irregular in these
respects, and forthis reason 1t is consid-
cred that costs SHOULD not be allowed.
A conveyance made with express intent
to defraud, hinder or delay creditors is
void as to them. A voluntary conveyance
from father to son is prima facie fraudu-
lent and void as to existing creditors.
Such conveyance is to be considered not
only in the light of all surrounding Cir
cumstances, but in the light Of necessary
consequences. Whether the property con-
veyed was all that the grantor owned or
not, and if not, the amount and value Of
what remained relative to existing debts,
its situation, it's availability for the pur-
pose of being got at to be applied to the
payment of debts, whether by the convey
ance, the creditor is necessarily subjected
TO loss OF remedy for the collection of
all or part of his debt, or is necessarily
hindered or delayed in his ability to col
lect his debt, all these circumstances are
to be weighed in determining whether the
conveyance was fraudulent in intent, or
worked out fraudulent result; and one
OF these is as fatal as the other When
such conveyance must necessarily result
In defeating, hindering OF delaying credi-
tors, as we'll as when such result was
expressly intended, it is to be regarded as
fraudulent and void as to them. The
intent to defraud is sufficiently proved.
A nonresident debtor owing creditor
in this state, gave to his son all his
property In this state. He died soon af-
ter, leaving an estate in California. saffi-
cient to pay the claims of the creditor
here. But in California large part OF
the claim, at the date of the gift. was
barred by the statute of limitation. In
this state, mona of it was barred.
Held, that the necessary effect of the gift
| was to utterly deprive the creditor of the
| ability to recover a large part of his debt,
and for the recovery of so much as re-
manned oollectable, in spite of the statute
of limitations, to ramit him to the tribu-
| nails OF distant state and that the gift
was void as against creditors in this state,
and that the fund should be administered
| in this state as the estate of q deceased
non resident.
Decree set aside. Upon payment Of
| fund into court, new decree to be made in
accordance with this opinion.
Waldo, So.
Fred W. Brown, Jr.. assignee, vs.. Isaac
r. Gould.
Rescript by Emery, 1.-THE evidence
does not satisfy the court that the tran
| saction, between the plaintiffs assignor
| in insolvency and the defendant, was In
| contemplation OF insolvency, or in fraud
of the insolvent law.
Judgment for defendant.
Androsooggin, SIS.
Lena Morgan VS.. City of Lewiston.
| Rescript by Wiswell, J.-This court has
always held that the statute which re-
quires cities and towns to keep their ways
''safe and convenient for travellers" means
reasonably and not absolutely SAFE
| Held; that it would be unreasonable
and impracticable to require cities and
| towns to so construct all their sidewalks
that, at the junction of rectangular
streets, they should meet upon exactly the
same level,