Sadler v. Immel (1880)
The complete opinion reproduced by OpenJurist was retrieved and preserved. This unofficial reproduction supplies a primary judicial text, not a current bankruptcy-law treatise.
Facts and complete holding
A banker assigned all assets in trust for pro-rata payment of creditors accepting the assignment. A dissenting creditor later sought execution, contending the assignment was invalid. The court affirmed judgment sustaining the assignment. Full primary opinion, unofficial reproduction.
The then-federal bankruptcy act suspended Nevada’s then-insolvency act as a whole. That did not eliminate a fair common-law assignment. No federal bankruptcy proceeding had intervened within the then-applicable six-month period. A common-law assignment did not require statutory inventories or schedules. The record did not establish excluded out-of-county creditors. Full primary opinion, unofficial reproduction.
The appellate record supported the implied finding that assenting creditors’ debts equaled the assigned property, and missing record material was construed against the appellant. The court did not decide whether creditor assent was always necessary, or adjudicate modern federal bankruptcy avoidance. Its historical six-month discussion is not today’s filing or avoidance deadline. Full opinion.
Current-law boundary
The decision supports Nevada’s common-law ABC category; it does not supply an automatic judicial confirmation, purchaser lien discharge or transfer of nonassignable licences. Current federal bankruptcy law and each asset’s perfection/transfer regime must be applied separately. Nevada corporate/LLC receiverships under NRS 78.630–.750 and NRS 86.541–.549 are distinct.
Actual later judicial treatment
Chiatovich v. Young,61Nev286,127P2d218(1942), expressly applies Sadler: a valid prior assignment defeated dissenting creditors’ later attachment, and the record supported implied assent by creditors whose debts equaled the assigned value. Dissenters could sue separately, but that did not make previously assigned property available to attach. The court also held delivery sufficient for ore values in solution, rejected an unpreserved claim-service objection, and did not decide mechanics’ wage-lien priority in that attachment proceeding. The complete later opinion, not a citation snippet, was reviewed. Full Chiatovich opinion, unofficial reproduction.
The complete holdings and reservations of both opinions were read. This is bounded affirmative later treatment, not a comprehensive citator certificate; the old federal statutory deadlines are not represented as current law. Full primary opinion, unofficial reproduction.
Applies in →
nevada · businesses-and-going-concerns
Legal information, not legal advice. Verify current insolvency law and the assignment instrument with a licensed attorney before acting.