Cunningham v. Brown, 213
| Decision Date | 28 April 1924 |
| Docket Number | No. 213,213 |
| Citation | 68 L.Ed. 873,44 S.Ct. 424,265 U.S. 1 |
| Parties | CUNNINGHAM v. BROWN et al |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Mr. Edward F. McClennen, of Boston, Mass., for petitioner.
Mr. John H. Devine, of Boston, Mass., for respondents Crockford and others.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 2-3 intentionally omitted] Mr. Louis Goldberg, of Boston, Mass., for respondent Brown.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 4-6 intentionally omitted] Mr. Chief Justice TAFT delivered the opinion of the Court.
These were six suits in equity brought by the trustees in bankruptcy of Charles Ponzi to recover of the defendants sums paid them by the bankrupt within four months prior to the filing of the petition in bankruptcy on the ground that they were unlawful preferences. All the trustees have died or resigned pending the litigation, and Cunningham, having been substituted for the last survivor, is now the sole trustee. The actions were tried together in the District Court, and were argued together in the Circuit Court of Appeals, and all the bills were dismissed in both courts. The facts and defenses are the same in all the cases, except that, in that of Benjamin Brown, there was an additional defense that he was a minor when the transactions occurred. We have brought the cases into this court by writ of certiorari.
The litigation grows out of the remarkable criminal financial career of Charles Ponzi. In December, 1919, with a capital of $150, he began the business of borrowing money on his promissory notes. He did not profess to receive money for investment for account of the lender. He borrowed the money on his credit only. He spread the false tale that on his own account he was engaged in buying international postal coupons in foreign countries and selling them in other countries at 100 per cent. profit, and that this was made possible by the excessive differences in the rates of exchange following the war. He was willing, he said, to give others the opportunity to share with him this profit. By a written promise in 90 days to pay them $150 for every $100 loaned, he induced thousands to lend him. He stimulated their avidity by paying his 90-day notes in full at the end of 45 days, and by circulating the notice that he would pay any unmatured note presented in less than 45 days at 100 per cent. of the loan. Within eight months he took in $9,582,000, for which he issued his notes for $14,374,000. He paid his agents a commission of 10 per cent. With the 50 per cent. promised to lenders, every loan paid in full with the profit would cost him 60 per cent. He was always insolvent, and became daily more so, the more his business succeeded. He made no investments of any kind, so that all the money he had at any time was solely the result of loans by his dupes.
The defendants made payments to Ponzi as follows:
Benjamin Brown, July 20th........ $ 600
Benjamin Brown, July 24th.......... 600
H. W. Crockford, July 24th....... 1,000
Patrick W. Horan, July 24th...... 1,600
Frank W. Murphy, July 22d.......... 600
Thomas Powers, July 24th........... 500
H. P. Holbrook, July 22d .........1,000
By July 1st, Ponzi was taking in about $1,000,000 a week. Because of an investigation by public authority, Ponzi ceased selling notes on July 26th, but offered and continued to pay all unmatured notes for the amount originally paid in, and all matured notes which had run 45 days, in full. The report of the investigation caused a run on Ponzi's Boston office by investors seeking payment, and this developed into a wild scramble when, August 2d, a Boston newspaper, most widely circulated, declared Ponzi to be hopelessly insolvent, with a full description of the situation, written by one of his recent employees. To meet this emergency, Ponzi concentrated all his available money from other banks in Boston and New England in the Hanover Trust Company, a banking concern in Boston, which had been his chief depository. There was no evidence of any general attempt by holders of unmatured notes to secure payment prior to the run which set in after the investigation July 26th.
The money of the defendants was paid by them between July 20th and July 24th and was deposited in the Hanover Trust Company. At the opening of business July 19th, the balance of Ponzi's deposit accounts at the Hanover Trust Company was $334,000. At the close of business July 24th it was $871,000. This sum was exhausted by withdrawals of July 26th of $572,000, of July 27th of $228,000, and of July 28th of $905,000, or a total of more than $1,765,000. In spite of this, the account continued to show a credit balance, because new deposits from other banks were made by Ponzi. It was finally ended by an overdraft on August 9th of $331,000. The petition in bankruptcy was then filed. The total withdrawals from July 19th to August 10th were $6,692,000. The claims which have been filed against the bankrupt estate are for the money lent, and not for the 150 per cent. promised.
Both courts held that the defendants had rescinded their contracts of loan for fraud and that they were entitled to a return of their money; that other dupes of Ponzi who filed claims in bankruptcy must be held not to have rescinded, but to have remained creditors, so that what the latter had paid in was the property of Ponzi; that the presumption was that a wrongdoing trustee first withdrew his own money from a fund mingled with that of his cestui que trustent, and therefore that the respective deposits of the defendants were still in the bank and available for return to them in rescission; and that payments to them of these amounts were not preferences, but merely the return of their own money.
We do not agree with the courts below. The outstanding facts are not really in dispute. It is only in the interpretation of those facts that our difference of view arises.
In the first place, we do not agree that the action of the defendants constituted a rescission for fraud and a restoration of the money lent on that ground. As early as April, his secretary testifies that Ponzi adopted the practice of permitting any who did not wish to leave his money for 45 days to receive it back in full without interest, and this was announced from time to time. Two of the defendants expressly testified to this. It was reiterated in the public press in July and by the investigating public authorities. There is no evidence that these defendants were consciously rescinding a contract for fraud. Certainly Ponzi was not returning their money on any admission of fraud. The lenders merely took advantage of his agreement to pay his unmatured notes at par of the actual loan. Such notes were paid under his agreement exactly as his notes which were matured were paid at par and 50 per cent. The real transaction between him and those who were seeking him is shown by the fact that there were...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Independent Clearing House Co.
...BANKRUPTCY, supra ? 70.252, at 355-56. This concept was firmly clarified by the United States Supreme Court in Cunningham v. Brown, 265 U.S. 1, 44 S.Ct. 424, 68 L.Ed. 873 (1924), which involved a fact situation virtually identical to the present Cunningham v. Brown, supra, was a suit by the......
-
Sharp v. Coopers & Lybrand
...shelter to a "Ponzi scheme," in which two investors were necessary to fulfill the obligations owed to one. See Cunningham v. Brown, 265 U.S. 1, 44 S.Ct. 424, 68 L.Ed. 873 (1924).3 Sharp also alleged common law fraud and breach of the common law duty of due care. Although the jury found Coop......
-
Cunningham v. MERCHANTS'NAT. BANK, 1703.
...reasonable cause to know it, prior to August 2d. This was the date shown in the record of the Supreme Court in Cunningham v. Brown, 265 U. S. 1, 44 S. Ct. 424, 68 L. Ed. 873. We cannot find from the record in the case at bar that the District Court was wrong in this finding. Facts which war......
-
In re Taubman, Bankruptcy No. 3-89-01642
...House Co.), 41 B.R. 985, 994 n. 12 (Bankr.D.Utah 1984), aff'd in relevant part, 62 B.R. 118 (D.Utah 1986). See Cunningham v. Brown, 265 U.S. 1, 44 S.Ct. 424, 68 L.Ed. 873 (1924); Conroy v. Shott, 363 F.2d 90 (6th Cir.1966), cert. denied, 385 U.S. 969, 87 S.Ct. 501, 17 L.Ed.2d 433 (1966). Ty......
-
Business Associations - Paul A. Quiros, Lynn S. Scott, William B. Shearer Iii, and James F. Brumsey
...112. 318 F. Supp. 2d 1205 (N.D. Ga. 2004). 113. Id. at 1206. 114. Id. 115. Id. at 1207. 116. Id. at 1206-07 (quoting Cunningham v. Brown, 265 U.S. 1, 13 (1924)). 117. Id. at 1207. 118. 267 Ga. App. 197, 598 S.E.2d 910 (2004). 119. Id. at 199, 598 S.E.2d at 912. 120. Id. at 198, 598 S.E.2d a......
-
THE GROWING CANNABIS PROBLEM: A LOOK AT MARIJUANA-RELATED BANKRUPTCIES AND THE INFEASIBILITY OF THE FEASIBILITY DOCTRINE.
...the extent of the CBD business and raised important questions about commingled proceeds. See id. at 743, n.54 (citing Cunningham v. Brown, 265 U.S. 1, 11-13 (99) See id. at 743-47. (100) 11 U.S.C. [section] 1129(a)(3) (2018) ("The court shall confirm a plan only if all of the following requ......
-
The law of Ponzi payouts.
...INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT 112 (2009). See generally LIONEL MARTELLINI ET AL., FIXED-INCOME SECURITIES 3-5 (2003). (16.) Cunningham v. Brown, 265 U.S. 1, 7 (1924). The scheme from which the Ponzi scheme derived its name, then, certainly did promise an outrageous rate of (17.) Id. (18.) Id. at 8.......
-
Chapter 5 THE ROLE OF THE FORENSIC ACCOUNTANT IN FRAUDULENT TRANSFER LITIGATION
...See SEC. v. Infinity Group Co., 226 Fed. Appx, 217, 218 (3d Cir. 2007) ("In the original Ponzi scheme case, Cunningham v. Brown, 265 U.S. 1, 44 S. Ct. 424, 68 L. Ed. 873 (1924), the Supreme Court held that 'tracing' fictions should not be used to pursue individual recoveries when a fraud en......