preferential claim (Illinois) · Go Syfert
← Illinois issues

preferential claim in Illinois

5 Illinois opinions name it 2 courts 1932–2001 0 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Illinois courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (0)

CaseFollowedCited
No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois.

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (6)

CaseCitedYears
Woodhouse v. Crandall green
ill · 1902
2 sentences

2001The mere fact that an insolvent received a trust fund which he has disposed of or dissipated, or mingled with his other funds and property, so that it is impossible to trace the fund and show where it is, will not enable the cestui que trust to establish a lien against the assets of the estate. [Citations.]" Woodhouse , 197 Ill. at 110 .

2001The mere fact that an insolvent received a trust fund which he has disposed of or dissipated, or mingled with his other funds and property, so that it is impossible to trace the fund and show where it is, will not enable the cestui que trust to establish a lien against the assets of the estate. [Citations.]” Woodhouse, 197 Ill. at 110 .

31932–2001
Howland v. People ex rel. Russell neutral
illappct · 1923
1 sentence

1935“To enforce a preferential claim on the theory of a trust, and to establish the claim against the assets in the hands of a receiver of a bank, the trust funds must be traceable to or serve to augment the assets of the bank to the extent thereof. ’ ’ This doctrine has been approved by our courts in Howland v. People, 229 Ill.

11935–1935
Eichelkraut v. Tracey green
illappct · 1934
1 sentence

1935App. 23 , and In re National Bank of Ottawa, 273 Ill.

11935–1935
Darcy v. Kelley neutral
mass · 1891
2 sentences

1934The creation of a preference in favor of relatives or named persons does not of itself make invalid a trust which is in other respects valid.” The same rule has been announced in the following cases: Darcy v. Kelly, 153 Mass. 433 , 26 N. E. 1110 , Gafney v. Kenison, 64 N. H. 354, 10 Atl. 706 , and In re Daly’s Estate, 208 Pa. 58 , 57 Atl. 180 .

1934The creation of a preference in favor of relatives or named persons does not of itself make invalid a trust which is in other respects valid.” The same rule has been announced in the following cases: Darcy v. Kelly, 153 Mass. 433 , 26 N. E. 1110 , Gafney v. Kenison, 64 N. H. 354, 10 Atl. 706 , and In re Daly’s Estate, 208 Pa. 58 , 57 Atl. 180 .

11934–1934
Gafney v. Kenison neutral
· 1887
1 sentence

1934The creation of a preference in favor of relatives or named persons does not of itself make invalid a trust which is in other respects valid.” The same rule has been announced in the following cases: Darcy v. Kelly, 153 Mass. 433 , 26 N. E. 1110 , Gafney v. Kenison, 64 N. H. 354, 10 Atl. 706 , and In re Daly’s Estate, 208 Pa. 58 , 57 Atl. 180 .

11934–1934
Daly's Estate neutral
pa · 1904
2 sentences

1934The creation of a preference in favor of relatives or named persons does not of itself make invalid a trust which is in other respects valid.” The same rule has been announced in the following cases: Darcy v. Kelly, 153 Mass. 433 , 26 N. E. 1110 , Gafney v. Kenison, 64 N. H. 354, 10 Atl. 706 , and In re Daly’s Estate, 208 Pa. 58 , 57 Atl. 180 .

1934The creation of a preference in favor of relatives or named persons does not of itself make invalid a trust which is in other respects valid.” The same rule has been announced in the following cases: Darcy v. Kelly, 153 Mass. 433 , 26 N. E. 1110 , Gafney v. Kenison, 64 N. H. 354, 10 Atl. 706 , and In re Daly’s Estate, 208 Pa. 58 , 57 Atl. 180 .

11934–1934

Where else courts name it

KS 5 (1927–2016) IL 5 (1932–2001) WI 4 (1977–1982) CA 4 (1939–2026) LA 4 (1926–1968) IA 4 (1926–1931) NY 3 (1916–1971) MO 2 (1912–1936) IN 2 (1935–1973) MA 2 (1955–1989)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check