Neal v. Clark

Decision Date01 October 1877
PartiesNEAL v. CLARK
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

ERROR to the Supreme Court of Appeals of the State of Virginia.

The facts out of which this case arises, so far as it is material to state them, are substantially these:——

William Fitzgerald, Jr., of the State of Virginia, by his will, which was admitted to probate in 1857, directed his executor to sell his entire landed estate, and distribute the proceeds among those entitled to them, according to the provisions of the will. The lands were sold as directed, in the same year, the purchasers giving bonds, with security, payable to the executor as such. Two of these bonds, each dated Dec. 1, 1857,—one for $1,000, due Nov. 18, 1859, with interest from Nov. 18, 1858, and the other for $2,293, due, with like interest, Nov. 18, 1860,—were sold and assigned by the executor, in June, 1859, to Griffith D. Neal, the plaintiff in error, for the sum of $2,780, who sold them to Richard Jones for $3,056. The latter collected them. When this transaction occurred, the executor, who was a brother of the testator, was a man of large property and undoubted solvency. Neal made no inquiry as to the condition of the estate, but the executor gave, as a reason for selling the bonds, that the estate was in debt to him for moneys advanced.

In 1860, a suit was instituted against the executor in the Circuit Court for Pittsylvania County, Virginia, to obtain a settlement of his accounts and a distribution of the estate. In 1861 in obedience to an order of court, he gave a new bond, with Clark and Holland as sureties; and in 1868 they were made defendants, and a decree was asked against them for whatever sum should be ascertained to be due from the executor. In 1869,—ten years after Neal had purchased the bonds, about seven years after the executor had become insolvent and removed from the State, and without any question having been previously raised as to Neal's liability, Clark and Holland exhibited their bill in the same court against the executor, the distributees, Neal, Jones, and others. They allege that the executor, in disposing of the bonds, committed a devastavit of the estate, and that, in view of the circumstances under which he received them, Neal became a participant in that devastavit, and is liable to the distributees for the amount of the bonds. They ask that, as sureties of the executor, they be substituted to the rights which the distributees have against Neal by reason of his alleged unlawful appropriation of the testator's assets. In the event of any judgment against them, they pray that it be rendered to be first satisfied by the purchaser of the notes.

In the District Court of the United States for the District of Virginia Neal was duly adjudged a bankrupt, and received his certificate, dated Feb. 11, 1869, showing his discharge from all debts and claims which, by the bankrupt law, were provable against his estate, and which existed on the 25th of January, 1868, 'except such debts as were exempted from the operation of a discharge in bankruptcy.'

Neal pleaded his discharge in bar of the action against him, but the Circuit Court for Pittsylvania County gave judgment against him and Jones for the amount of the two notes purchased from the executor. That judgment, so far as it held Neal liable, was affirmed in the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia, but, so far as it related to Jones, was reversed. Thereupon Neal brought the case here.

Mr. William A. Maury for the plaintiff in error.

The 'fraud or embezzlement' described by the bankrupt law of 1867 refers only to transactions involving criminal intent and wilful wrong-doing.

The object of statutes in relation to embezzlement is to embrace certain cases where, although the moral guilt was quite as great as in larceny, the technical objection, arising from the fact of possession lawfully acquired by the offending party, screened him from punishment. They were, therefore, declared crimes punishable by law. Commonwealth v. Simpson, 9 Met. (Mass.) 192.

The association of 'fraud' with 'embezzlement' fully justifies the conclusion that the legislature used the former word to indicate a transaction involving moral turpitude.

To deprive a party guilty of no intentional wrong of the benefit of his discharge in bankruptcy, upon the ground that he has committed a technical devastavit, defeats to that extent an act for the relief of the unfortunate debtors who in good faith surrender their property to their creditors.

No counsel appeared for the defendant in error.

Mr. JUSTICE HARLAN delivered the opinion of the court.

This case involves the meaning of the word 'fraud,' as used in the thirty-third section of the bankrupt law of 1867. That section provides that 'no debt created by the fraud or embezzlement of the bankrupt, or by defalcation as a public officer, or while acting in a fiduciary capacity, shall be discharged under this act.'

In the very able opinion of the Court of Appeals, it is said that 'all the cases agree in the principle that a purchaser from an executor of personal property of the testator for valuable consideration need not inquire, and has no means of inquiry, whether the condition of the testator's estate requires a sale of the property, and is not bound to see to the application of the purchase-money, but may fairly presume that the sale is rightly made, and that the purchase-money will be properly applied; and that such a purchaser can only be made liable on the ground of a fraudulent participation with the executor in the commission of a devastavit of his testator's estate. In other words, that the purchaser must be guilty of a fraud in that respect.'

'The only diversity in the cases,' continues that court, 'seems to have arisen from the different views of the judges as to the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
415 cases
  • Estate of Kalahasthi v. U.S.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Central District of California
    • July 7, 2008
    ...to avoid the giving of unintended breadth to the Acts of Congress." Jarecki, 367 U.S. at 307, 81 S.Ct. 1579 (citing Neal v. Clark, 95 U.S. 704, 708-09, 24 L.Ed. 586 (1877)). Although the parties agree on the appropriate doctrine to apply, they dispute the import of the coupling of "wound" w......
  • Gavola v. Asbra (In re Asbra)
    • United States
    • United States Bankruptcy Courts. Sixth Circuit. U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Southern District of Ohio
    • June 9, 2022
    ...of common-law fraud: It denotes any fraud that ‘involv[es] moral turpitude or intentional wrong.’ " Id. (quoting Neal v. Clark , 95 U.S. 704, 709, 24 L.Ed. 586 (1878) ). "[A]nything that counts as ‘fraud’ and is done with wrongful intent is ‘actual fraud.’ " Id. Further, the Court stated th......
  • In re Southern Metal Products Corporation, 6049.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Alabama
    • February 4, 1939
    ...in that it secures to the unfortunate debtor, who surrenders his property for distribution, a new opportunity in life. Neal v. Clark, 95 U.S. 704, 709, 24 L.Ed. 586; Traer v. Clews, 115 U.S. 528, 541, 6 S.Ct. 155, 29 L.Ed. 467; Hanover National Bank v. Moyses, 186 U. S. 181, 192, 22 S.Ct. 8......
  • Matter of Armstrong
    • United States
    • United States Bankruptcy Courts. Eleventh Circuit. U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Northern District of Alabama
    • October 22, 1985
    ...in law, which may exist without the imputation of bad faith or immorality." 138 U.S. at 311, 11 S.Ct. at 312, citing Neal v. Clark, 95 U.S. 704, 24 L.Ed. 586 (1877). In Brown v. Felson, 442 U.S. 127, 99 S.Ct. 2205, 60 L.Ed.2d 767 (1979) the Court took note of Congressional intent, in enacti......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 firm's commentaries
  • U.S. Supreme Court Resolves Circuit Split In Bullock v. BankChampaign, N.A.
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • July 5, 2013
    ...enacted, and noted that the definitions of the word defalcation were very broad. The Court then turned to its decision of Neal v. Clark, 95 U.S. 704 (1878) for guidance. In Neal, the Supreme Court interpreted the word "fraud," as it appeared in the discharge statute existing at the time, by......
10 books & journal articles
  • Jennifer Liotta, Erisa Fiduciaries in Bankruptcy: Preserving Individual Liability for Defalcation and Fraud Debts Under 11 U.s.c. Sec. 523(a)(4)
    • United States
    • Emory University School of Law Emory Bankruptcy Developments Journal No. 22-2, June 2006
    • Invalid date
    ...See 11 U.S.C. Sec. 523(a)(4) (2000); 29 U.S.C. Sec. 1002(21)(A) (2000). 34 11 U.S.C. Sec. 523(a)(4). 35 See id Sec. 101. 36 Neal v. Clark, 95 U.S. 704, 709 (1878) (interpreting section 33 of the Bankruptcy Act of 1867); see also, e.g., Ozburn v. Moore (In re Moore), 277 B.R. 141, 151 (Bankr......
  • Here Lions Roam: Cisg as the Measure of a Claim's Value and Validity and a Debtor's Dischargeability
    • United States
    • Emory University School of Law Emory Bankruptcy Developments Journal No. 34-2, June 2018
    • Invalid date
    ...514, 517 (E.D.N.Y. 1991) (quoting In re Gans, 75 B.R. at 481).101. Marrama v. Citizens Bank, 549 U.S. 365, 374-75 (2007); Neal v. Clark, 95 U.S. 704, 706 (1877); The Federalist No. 42 (James Madison) ("The power of establishing uniform laws of bankruptcy is so intimately connected with the ......
  • The Preclusive Effect of Disgorgement Orders in Non-dischargeability Actions Under § 523(a)(19)
    • United States
    • Emory University School of Law Emory Bankruptcy Developments Journal No. 30-2, June 2014
    • Invalid date
    ...be a major objective of federal securities regulation.").49. Grogan v. Garner, 498 U.S. 279, 287 (1991).50. See generally Neal v. Clark, 95 U.S. 704 (1877) (articulating that "fraud" as interpreted in the original Bankrupt Act of 1867 means positive fraud, or fraud in fact, involving "moral......
  • DEBTOR EMBEZZLEMENT OF COLLATERAL.
    • United States
    • American Bankruptcy Law Journal Vol. 97 No. 1, March 2023
    • March 22, 2023
    ...INSOLVENT Laws OF Massachusetts with Notes of Decisions, 149 (4th ed. 1878) (citing St. 1846, c. 168, [section] 1). (21) Neal v. Clark, 95 U.S. 704, 709 (1877) (stating that "in the section of the law of 1867 which sets forth the classes of debts which are exempted from the operation of a d......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 provisions
  • 11 U.S.C. § 523 Exceptions to Discharge
    • United States
    • US Code 2019 Edition Title 11. Bankruptcy Chapter 5. Creditors, the Debtor, and the Estate Subchapter II. Debtor's Duties and Benefits
    • January 1, 2019
    ...respecting the debtor's or an insider's financial condition. Subparagraph (A) is intended to codify current case law e.g., Neal v. Clark, 95 U.S. 704 (1887) [24 L. Ed. 586], which interprets "fraud" to mean actual or positive fraud rather than fraud implied in law. Subparagraph (A) is mutua......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT