Bartholow v. Bean
Decision Date | 01 October 1873 |
Citation | 85 U.S. 635,18 Wall. 635,21 L.Ed. 866 |
Parties | BARTHOLOW v. BEAN |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
ERROR to the Circuit Court for the District of Missouri; the case, as found by the District Court, and on which the judgment to which the writ of error was taken had been entered below, being in substance thus:
Kintzing & Co. (a firm composed of one Kintzing and a certain Lindsley) were grocers in St. Louis, and kept a bank account with Bartholow & Co., bankers in the same city. On the 15th of January, 1869, these last discounted a note for $2500 of their customers, the said Kintzing & Co., indorsed by J. B. Wilcox, and maturing on the 15-18th of March, 1869.
On the 15th of February, 1869, Kintzing & Co. called a meeting of their creditors. These assembled and 'most of them' signed a deed of composition, by which they agreed to take seventy cents on the dollar, in notes of Kintzing, payable in six, twelve, and eighteen months. But there was a provision in the deed that it should not be binding on any creditors unless agreed to and signed by all. Some did not sign. Some who signed, took the composition notes [the amount so taken having been (apparently) $75,000].1
Among the few who did not sign were Bartholow & Co. They well knew, however, that an agreement such as above described had been entered into by the other creditors.
On the 27th of February, Kintzing & Co. dissolved their partnership, Lindsley retiring, and Kintzing taking all the assets and assuming all the debts of the firm.
Before the day when the note of Kintzing & Co. matured, Wilcox, he, as already said, being confessedly solvent, waived protest and notice; and the note remained unpaid till August 9th, on which day Kintzing, being then 'hopelessly insolvent even under the terms of the agreement,' paid it.
On the 18th of August, 1869, 'the paper given by said Kintzing, pursuant to the terms of said compromise, to the amount of about $25,000, became due,' and on the 17th of September a petition in bankruptcy was filed against him, on which he was decreed a bankrupt, and one Bean appointed his assignee in bankruptcy.
Bean brought this suit against Bartholow & Co., to recover the money which Kintzing had paid to the said bankers, in discharge of the note, alleging that he made the payment 'with a view to give a preference to them,' and in fraud of the provisions of the Bankrupt law.
The thirty-fifth and thirty-ninth sections of the Bankrupt law, which were relied on by the assignee as giving him the right in law to recover, are thus:2
'And if any person being insolvent, or in contemplation of insolvency or bankruptcy, within six months before the filing of the petition . . . against him makes any payment, sale, assignment, transfer, conveyance, or other disposition of his property, to any person who then has reasonable cause to believe him insolvent, or to be acting in contemplation of insolvency, and that such payment, sale, assignment, transfer, conveyance, or other disposition, & c., is made with a view to prevent his property from coming to his assignee in bankruptcy, or to prevent the same being distributed under this act, or to defeat the object of, . . . or to evade any of the provisions of this act, the sale, assignment, transfer, or conveyance shall be void, and the assignee may recover the property, or the value thereof, as assets of the bankrupt.
The court below, on the case found, gave judgment for the assignee. Bartholow & Co. brought the case here.
Mr. K. H. Spencer, for the plaintiffs in error:
1. Bartholow & Co. were compelled to receive payment when tendered, since if they had refused to receive payment the indorser, Wilcox, whose liability was contingent only on non-payment by Kintzing & Co., would have been discharged.
2. Bartholow & Co. had no notice of Kintzing's insolvency. The case, as found, is perhaps defective, in not showing more particularly than it does the condition of Kintzing & Co.'s affairs—the relative state of their debts and assets—when they called their creditors together.3 But it is clear that it was considered that a release of 30 per cent. would set Kintzing up; and that creditors to the amount of more than $100,000 did not only sign off at the rate of 70 cents on the dollar, but did actually take composition notes; the notes that came due in August six months from the date of the deed of composition—having as found been $25,000. To this extent, therefore,—a very large extent, it would seem, from the magnitude of the figures,—we may assume as matter of law, that Kintzing was released, notwithstanding the clause in the deed that the composition should not bind any creditor unless all agreed to it. The creditors who not only signed but took and kept the notes, in law waived that clause.4 The case then is this: A trader having solid assets, finds himself embarrassed; he calls his...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Tabor v. Davis (In re Davis)
...should also be permitted to recover from the guarantor the same amount when paid directly to the underlying creditor. Bartholow v. Bean, 85 U.S. 635 (1873). The Bankruptcy Code of 1978 describes a "creditor" as an "entity that has a claim against the debtor that arose at the time of or befo......
-
Watchmaker v. Barnes
... ... 117 C.C.A. 346; National Bank of Newport v. Herkimer ... [259 F. 787] ... 225 ... U.S. 178, 32 Sup.Ct. 633, 56 L.Ed. 1042; Bartholow v ... Bean, 18 Wall. 635, 2 L.Ed. 866; Landry v ... Andrews, 22 R.I. 597, 48 A. 1036; Brown v. Streicher ... (D.C.) 177 F. 473 ... ...
-
Capital National Bank v. Wilkerson
...paid to it as an unlawful preference. It was shown that the securities on the $ 3,500 note were solvent, and, following the case of Bartholow v. Bean, supra, it held that the payment to the bank, under the facts exhibited, constituted an unlawful preference. We can see no difference in prin......
-
Atherton v. Emerson
... ... 386, 49 L. R. A. 698 ... Similar decisions were made under the bankrupt act of 1867 ... (Act March 2, 1867, c. 176, 14 Stat. 517). Bartholow v ... Bean, 18 Wall. (U. S.) 635, 21 L.Ed. 866; Ahl v ... Thorner, 3 N. B. R. 118, Fed. Cas. No. 103. We do not ... need here to consider the ... ...